Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/February 2017

File:Canon EF 17-40mm f4L USM collage.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2017 at 14:19:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Optical_devices
Info all by me – Lucas 14:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lucas 14:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special Charles (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This time --Llez (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support good work! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 22:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 22:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support By the way my objection was not quite the same as Poco's - I don't really care how many FPs it "counts" as. 11 angles is too many regardless of how it is presented, and this current one is fine either as a collage or as separate images. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@King of Hearts: Thanks for the additional info, I'll keep that in mind when I create the 180 mm lens collage. – Lucas 15:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per KoH. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 09:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 12:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing exciting here. Would rather fit as VI. --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Technically excellent photos, but there has to be a more aesthetical way to present these collages. For me, this looks more like a photo from a catalogue. --cart-Talk 18:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although cart's point should be taken. Daniel Case (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question What is the encyclopaedic value of this image? A lens is just a lens... How does this image (or type of image) advance knowledge? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is not just a repository of images for Wikipedia. Encyclopedic value is appreciated here but not necessary. -- Thennicke (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thennicke is absolutely right. Besides: The image has a lot of encyclopedic value, e.g. here --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thennicke: @Tomascastelazo: @Martin Falbisoner: I have a "problem" that the single images of my lenses are not really suitable for FP because there are so many and they are repetitive, but they can be better used in articles. The collages tend to become a bit too boring for FP, but provide more value per image (though I can't get VI on them because they want them to be in use, a point that is currently in discussion in the VI candidates talk page). I have no hard feelings if they all stay QI and only some FPs, but I try nevertheless ;) I like this style of product images of lenses. – Lucas ^T 17:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucasbosch: I like this style of image too, which is why I keep supporting your nominations - and I know how much work goes into them. If you're interested there is a relevant discussion here about what we promote at FPC, which you might be interested in reading/contributing to. -- Thennicke (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--The Photographer 22:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Eerste zonnestralen strijken over een winters landschap. Pad tussen Put van Nederhorst en Langweerderwielen. Locatie, Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen) en omgeving 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2017 at 19:05:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info First sunbeams sweep over a winter landscape. Path between Put van Nederhorst and Langweerderwielen. Location, Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen) and surroundings. All by User:Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This looks striking even at thumbnail size, and as I look at larger sizes, it gets better and better. Great light and a really good composition that pulls the viewer down the path. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lucas ^T 19:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support –-cart-Talk 20:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The trees are nice, but there's a lot of shaded foreground. Charles (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The shaded foreground provides good contrast -- Thennicke (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brilliant and intriguing. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per supporters above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has that right combination of warm and cold tones that works so well in winter. The curving road is also a great compositional element that draws us into the image. Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -per Daniel Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 18:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely colours and composition. --Code (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reguyla (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--The Photographer 23:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nutria (Myocastor coypus) in a partially frozen river Ljubljanica.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2017 at 15:42:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Order : Rodentia (Rodents)
Info Nutria (Myocastor coypus). My shot. -- Mile (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose - For nutria pictures, I think File:Biberratte - Nutria - coypu - Myocastor coypus - ragondin - castor des marais - Mönchbruch - November 24th 2013 - 02.jpg has a better composition, though I don't love that the nutria is eating bread in that picture. This one does have a larger image of a nutria, though, and we see both its front and back paws, but its eyes aren't fully open. But my real problem with this photo is the very unsharp ice at the near right corner, which I find just too distracting at full screen and even at thumbnail size. In order to fully crop it out, some pretty aggressive cuts on both the bottom and right would be needed, and then other sides might need to be cropped for balance. I'd like to see the result and would reconsider in that case. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Good, but DoF small. --XRay ^talk 06:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan, I don't like the ice there. A shame ... without it the pose, and the expression on his face, is enough to carry it for me. Daniel Case (talk) 04:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I agree with Ikan, don't you have other shots without distracting elements in the foreground? The quality of the nutria is though very good Poc o² 09:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miha (talk) 11:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan – Lucas 14:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The pose and that pondering look makes me ignore the ice patch, it doesn't bother me here. The subject/animal is sharp and well photographed. --cart-Talk 18:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--The Photographer 22:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Paraglider near Nebelhorn.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2017 at 09:31:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Previous version nominations

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
Info all by Miha (talk)
Support -- Miha (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC) I vote for the edited picture.[reply]
Support. Gorgeous view and lighting. It would be even better if shifted down - i.e. less sky, and more foreground. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Poc o² 09:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC) I also prefer the third one Poc o² 21:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info I uploaded another version, with a different cut (as proposed by @King of Hearts), and less noise in the sky (i worked with raw file instead of jpg) and thus different saturation settings (I couldn't reconstruct base white balance of raw file to match camera settings for jpg conversion) --Miha (talk) 10:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would vote Support cause I believe it is an outstanding picture, but I discovered I still haven't 50 edits on my account! ---- Argos of Athens 13:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shows features of a JPG pushed too far in processing (blockiness, posterisation). -- Colin (talk) 12:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition good, may be FP. But JPEG artifacts. And the title says "Paraglider", a main motiv. ;-) --XRay ^talk 13:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but for the opposers --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Striations/JPG artifacts in the sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info lower cut, saturated colours
Comment The composition is better, but the colors are too strong. Can you restore the original colors? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info I replaced this file with a new version --Miha (talk) 11:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Oppose Could probably be processed in several ways, according to taste. But it's a great scene. The JPG seems to be missing its colour profile (sRGB), it would be good to add one. It is possible to get GIMP to do this but I don't use it enough to remember offhand. -- Colin (talk) 12:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC) The processing is still too damaging on this version too. -- Colin (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Info I added standard GIMP colour space data. I was not aware of it's importance as I usually post sooc images. --Miha (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Problems CAs at the snow parts. Please check your image. And please no JPEG compression, just 100%. --XRay ^talk 13:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose Checked again. IMO no CAs but cold colors in the shadows. That's natural. But the sky still looks posterized (JPEG artifacts). Please try to fix it with less compression. --XRay ^talk 08:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry but for the XRAY --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what do you mean by "CA"? There are no artefacts in the snow – the mountain wall is quite steep and snow only partially covered the rocks (which results in grey spots in the snow). I did no compression in Gimp, I could share RAW if someone is better at editing. --Miha (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I am confused about the "CA" comment. Also, 100% JPG is not necessary. For Photoshop 11/12 is just fine and the equivalent on Lightroom is 90%. I don't know the optimal setting on GIMP but 100% (no compression) is not necessary for FP. -- Colin (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. And optimal settings on GIMP are between 97 and 99, depending on level of concern that posterisation might occur -- Thennicke (talk) 05:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ - Beautiful and a better version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lucas 22:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 11:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Definitly no FP. There are strong artefacts in the dark part on the right. --Milseburg (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I'm not sure anymore. There's a lot of color noise on the right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I applied some blur in the most affected areas in the updated version, so that CA's in the sun rays are not visible anymore – the edit can be reverted if the blur itself became a factor of distraction. --Miha (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miha, please remove the blur. I remained puzzled about the CA comments -- I see no CA anywhere. I see that the area on the far right has been pushed a bit too far, and has perhaps posterised, but that could be handled better than a huge blur. You are welcome to send me the raw file and I will send you back a JPG if you want to see what Lightroom can do for this. -- Colin (talk) 07:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Milseburg; they definitely weren't there in the original. Daniel Case (talk) 07:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I uploaded a 16-bit tif with the desired colour temperature (8653 K) and reduced green (.919) and no CA's. It seems that the problem is GIMP inability to work with 16 bit colorspace (the subsequent contrast changes to the rocky structure of the foreground mountain in the right part of the picture). I was not able to upload NEF, so @Colin: can get it per Email. --Miha (talk) 08:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You can upload NEF here: [1]. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lightroom edit[edit]

Info Colin's edit. Same as above, but edited in Lightroom (which supports 16bit colour space => greater quality).
Support --Miha (talk) 08:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Lucasbosch, XRay, Daniel Case, Ikan Kekek, and Milseburg: @MZaplotnik, Thennicke, King of Hearts, Livioandronico2013, and Martin Falbisoner: @Άργος, PetarM, and Poco a poco:
Support -- Colin (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Btw, Miha, Lightroom supports 32-bit floating point HDR, which is far greater image depth than even 16-bit integer, and more than our 10- to 14-bit sensors can output currently. Thus one can heavily manipulate the raw file without causing posterisation, vs 8-bit JPG. Even a 16-bit tiff will posterise in the highlights if manipulated, because a standard gamma does not allocate very many bits to the brightest levels, vs a raw file which is the opposite because of its linear gamma. -- Colin (talk) 09:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the info and the edit!! It seems that the Gimp is getting 32-bit support in the next stable version (2.10) too, currently only the unstable (2.9) version has it, whereas the stable version (2.8) only supports 8-bits. --Miha (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Support – Lucas 09:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 10:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I really like this version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one's great! --M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 13:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It work now. --Mile (talk) 13:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better, indeed. Poc o² 21:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colin saves the day! (Literally ...) Daniel Case (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question shall we replace the old version by this file after voting, as keeping three separate versions makes only little sense (this version is of much better quality) --Miha (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miha: Jaz bi zgornje dve obrisal kot {{duplicate}} od tele, ne bi nič dodatno menjal ker samo plac zavzavme dodatno. Tukaj pa makar spremeni ime fajla pa dodaj opis iz originala. --Mile (talk) 07:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rough translation of Mile's message: I would mark the other two files as {{Duplicate}} of this new version. Additionally, you can change filename of this one (...)

Ok, good suggestion. Hvala :) --Miha (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 11:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Paraglider near Nebelhorn (Lightroom edit).jpg

File:Torre Acuario 170120.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2017 at 03:12:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Cvmontuy - uploaded by Cvmontuy - nominated by Cvmontuy -- Cvmontuy (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cvmontuy (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I probably should explain that I played with the idea of cropping out most of the shadowy foreground, which is why I marked a possible place for a crop on the nomination page. However, I'm not sure I don't like the shadows and will live with this photo for a while before passing judgment. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing exciting here for me, just a QI or maybe VI --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can see what attracted you to it, but I suggest framing it more tightly. As it is the dark stuff in the lower right is distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I might consider this featurable if part of the shadowy foreground were cropped out. I'd also prefer for the right crop to be a bit to the right of the sign, but I'm not sure if that's a factor in my voting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Whiskered tern kerala india.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2017 at 18:33:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by Deepugn - uploaded by Deepugn - nominated by Deepugn -- Deepugn (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Good photo, but I think the standard for FP bird pictures, even of birds in flight, is higher, in that this is a small picture, only moderately focused, and I also find the bokeh sky pretty loud and obtrusive. Don't get me wrong: This is a good picture. My points are only in relation to why I don't think it's one of the very best pictures on the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:59, 31 January 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: Small image and not particularly detailed compared to other FP birds. -- Colin (talk) 20:00, 31 January 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.

File:Faro, Chipiona, España, 2015-12-08, DD 27.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2017 at 14:48:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
Info The 62 m high lighthouse of Chipiona, located in Chipiona, province of Cádiz, Andalusia, is the highest in Spain and one of the highest in the world. The lighthouse was inaugurated in 1869 and helps the ships to enter the estuary of the Guadalquivir river, the only one navigable in Spain. All by me, Poc o² 14:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 14:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It very big, sharp, well executed, phallic and all, but I'm not wowed by the dull light and the rather dense cloudy sky. Sorry. --cart-Talk 18:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid the dull lighting demotes this to QI. -- Colin (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, I regret. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 19:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nizza-Baie des Anges-4070920.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2017 at 15:04:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created & uploaded by User:Ermell - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'll be interested to see what you think of this photo. I particularly like the light color offshore, and I think in this case, the foliage in the foreground improves the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~★ nmaia ^d 16:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't really mind the foliage at the bottom but the stuff at the top is not for me. Charles (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles. It would also help the aspect ratio if it was cropped to the lower half, approximately. – Lucas ^T 16:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I disagree with you guys and like the foliage on top. But of course User:Ermell can do what he wants. [Edited to add that I probably wouldn't have nominated the photo if it were just the lower half, and might or might not vote to feature such a photo.] -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not a very interesting composition and I also don't like the top crop --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)![reply]
Oppose It's a nice place but when I look at the pic, all I can see is that branch hanging down like some sort of bangs in front of my eyes. The rest of the pic is like a QI postcard from a pleasant holiday. Sorry. --cart-Talk 08:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination - This composition obviously isn't to the taste of this board, so no point in dragging things out. I haven't changed my mind, but you disagree. So be it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crash.arp.600pix.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2017 at 08:51:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Bennie J. Davis III - uploaded by MatthiasKabel - nominated by Tiven2240 -- Tiven2240 (talk) 08:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tiven2240 (talk) 08:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, it is well below the minimum size of 2 megapixels -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I would actually support this regardless of the low resolution. It's a brilliant capture of a well publicized accident. KennyOMG (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I too think that this is one of those cases where the photo is unique enough and shows something so well (see its VI status) that a FP is deserved. I've never seen an ejection in this early stage before with the cover close behind in the air. Googling now, there are a few good or better shots of them but still this image is special because 1. of the circumstances and 2. it seems it is the closest perspective we have on Commons and 3. it really shows why someone would want to eject himself from a fighter jet, which you don't get from similar shots higher up in the atmosphere or test setups. Other images of ejections aren't as dramatic in their surroundings. – Lucas ^T 20:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of those rare photos that I call "Buzz-Aldrin's-footprint-photos", that is a low-quality photo but other criteria are more important than just quality for an FP. cart-Talk 21:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info Its is a crop of a FP.--ArildV (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted, thanks for the information! Didn't know an FP of it already existed. Well that rules out my 'support' here and change it to Oppose. --cart-Talk 22:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Info the original uncropped image is just shy of 6mp if that helps, though I personally would prefer the current one over it. KennyOMG (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should we turn this into a delist-and-replace-nomination? I'm not important enough here to decide this. I favor the cropped version as well, it has enough context IMO. – Lucas ^T 22:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Maybe so, but I would oppose such a replacement, on the grounds that in my opinion, the current FP has a much better composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:51, 30 January 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 already featured as File:F16 Idaho airshow.jpg. As both versions cannot be featured, start a delist and replace if you want to feature this version instead. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:16, 31 January 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.

File:2016.07.18.-47-Strande--Eiderenten-Maennchen im Schlichtkleid.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2017 at 09:56:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 09:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 09:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not in focus. Charles (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. ~★ nmaia ^d 16:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Hockei (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mercado Municipal (São Paulo) 05.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2017 at 16:19:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food_and_drink
Info All by -- The Photographer 16:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I really like the arrangement of the sausages in this stall and i love these food pictures, but there is a combination of small issues (for me), that bothers me: The slightly cropped hooks at the top, the asymmetrically placed neon lamp in the background giving some unattractive blown areas, focus is a bit soft but forgiveable in itself, image seems a tad oversprocessed leading to some color noise on the sausages. All in all that adds up to a neutral vote from me. Could you geolocate it, please? -- Slaunger (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The food in the foreground is not in focus. Charles (talk) 12:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed, I suspect from noise reduction, looks like a painting but with weird streaks looking like bacteria. – Lucas ^T 18:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The highlights on the stuff on the counter are blown. Most noticeably to me is that it seems that the wrong white balance was chosen ... this looks like the greenish cast you get from fluorescent lighting if you're not careful. That can easily be corrected of course, but I'm not sure that's all that would do it, given the comments above. Daniel Case (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Light conditions in this market is low and f/4.5 was not a good choise. Thanks for the comments and sugestions. A hug The Photographer 17:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Desenka meadow 2016 G3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2017 at 18:01:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info Crepuscular rays. Meadow at dawn near Desenka railway halt. Ukraine -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose sorry but too blurry, makes no wow --Miha (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It probably felt magical being at that place but it doesn't quite come out in the picture. The sky and the rays are very pale and feels almost like another photo than the darker misty lower half of the pic. Sorry. --cart-Talk 18:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per cart. It is a very serene image ... so serene, alas, that it is not wowing. Daniel Case (talk) 06:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel Case. --Karelj (talk) 09:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I feel slightly like a stinker for agreeing with the opposers, but my feeling about this photo from the beginning was that the form doesn't really add up for me, though I really like the phenomena being depicted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hudson River at Norrie State Park.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2017 at 01:41:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info all by me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - my absolute favorite light conditions, warm evening light against a backdrop of dark clouds. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great photo! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Drama! --cart-Talk 10:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support maybe a tad oversaturated and/or WB too warm - but still... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question When was it taken? 23 January: 2015 (EXIF) / 2016 (file description) / 2017? --A.Savin 13:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@A.Savin: Good catch, fixed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Superb. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 16:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I, too, have been struck by the photographic potential of the Hudson shoreline in this area ... I took some from the area to the right last summer, also in golden hour or so, that I should perhaps upload and nominate. If this passes, it will be the closest FP to where I live yet. Daniel Case (talk) 06:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Saint Anthony of Padua Church.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2017 at 12:39:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Brazil
Info All by -- The Photographer 12:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not like the asymmetric crop. Can you change this? --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add a crop sugestion please. Thanks --The Photographer 15:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with Uoaei1. I'm not a fanatic about crops always being symmetrical, by any means, but this one makes me feel off-balance. My suggestion would be to include an equivalent amount of additional content to the right, if that's possible. Cutting the chair in the middle on the left side won't produce a good effect. Very high-quality photo, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not possible, I'm sorry --The Photographer 10:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral pending resolution of this "crop or not?" question. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alt symmetrical version per Ikan Kekek sugestion

Info All by --The Photographer 01:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Support. Unfortunate about the chair, but I find this photo pretty relaxing to look at, and it's certainly a good photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I'm certainly no expert in church interiors and sadly show no emotional reaction to them. The photo is technically good, but it lacks wow for me and the similar colors of the desk with the background certainly don't help it. Also the lighting is all over the place with the blueish lights on the left and right walls, warm candles and cold LED candles (if I guessed correctly). – Lucas ^T 21:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A image not need be explained to be FP and if it's not wow for you I respect your vote and opinion. This is a simple church, without great visible things, like any other in São Paulo, it was recently restored and a new mural was rescued from the ceiling. This little church is very little visited. Thanks --The Photographer 23:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:US - Mexican border.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2017 at 23:27:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wonder what happens to fauna migration with this wall... -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Why so much sky? Also, seeing a sign that says "se vende" and then is cut off, I want to know what they were selling. Could you possibly add a bit more land on the near side and remove some of the sky? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a way to express the folly of borders, the sky is the limit type of thing... The land on the Mexican side was for sale, that could come out... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I understand your poetic point about the sky, though I think the point could still be made with a bit less sky. I'll try to put a suggested crop in the image notes. On cropping out the sign, though, I'd really hate for more land to be cropped out of the picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the artistic approach which makes this a very meaningful picture. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Frank --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tomascastelazo, please add a FP category for this and fix the file categories (Countries?), also one of them doesn't exist yet. – Lucas 15:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This looks like a more contemporary version of the famous Windows XP default wallpaper, the amount of sky is appropriate. Please add a geocode though, it's a long border. --cart-Talk 19:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose oppose for now, because the wall has a visible halo on its top edge and the Se Vende sign has magenta CAs. You could maybe remove the sign entirely, I find it a bit distracting with its stark white. I'll gladly change my vote later. I would also favor a tighter crop with a bit less sky to have more wall relatively. – Lucas 20:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Frank and Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But I didn't support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I want to see more of the desert. I think you cropped the bottom too severely. Also the exposure seems too dark. -- Thennicke (talk) 09:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Your idea to show so much sky works as art, but it's hard to realize that you're showing us the border fence since it takes up so little of the image, and I agree with other criticisms of the technical shortcomings. Daniel Case (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per other opponents. --Karelj (talk) 09:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 07:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Agave July 2011-1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2017 at 10:02:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales
Info created & uploaded by Alvesgaspar - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 10:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 10:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Maire (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support But please can you save your JPGs with EXIF data, including the colour profile. -- Colin (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not my photo, but Alvesgaspar's. Maybe it's because of the stitching? Tomer T (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support At the first glance, it didn't convince me but it seems interesting, even a bit funny. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice one. – Lucas ^T 19:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 21:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Elegant. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support They look like alien creatures on legs. (Maybe the composition should be shifted a little to the right for better symmetry.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Triffids!! --cart-Talk 13:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Franz Joseph I (bust).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2017 at 08:08:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
Info Bust of Franz Joseph I. Slovenian National Gallery. My shot. -- Mile (talk) 08:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have many moustached sculptures of old Franz, but none of young years.
Support -- Mile (talk) 08:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent resolution, and I like the depth of field because it really makes the face pop out at full-page size. Very good portrait of a portrait. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Some chromatic noise in the dark parts. Please correct the english file description, it is not "Medium: watercolour, ink (drawing-pen), paper, 57 x 43 x 33 cm."--Jebulon (talk) 09:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I put question to National Gallery. I have feeling its like marble (porcelain ?). For noise, i think its very low. --Mile (talk) 10:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose not a fan of the crossed shadows under the chin, which create distracting shapes. IMO the DOF is quite shallow, too – Lucas 15:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't mind the nose shadows; it's in a gallery so it doesn't look strange to me -- Thennicke (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Thennicke. Nice enough detail that we can see the little sparkly parts in the face. Daniel Case (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Beautiful expression, but peripheral vision is very vague. --Famberhorst (talk) 06:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~★ nmaia ^d 16:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Poertschach Halbinselpromenade Kapuzinerinsel und Pyramidenkogel 11012017 6015.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2017 at 08:09:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created & uploaded by User:Johann Jaritz - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Another in Johann's great series of winter pictures of Wörthersee, this one with crepuscular rays over the hill and reeds as witnesses to the scene. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry but I don't find anything special about this picture. KennyOMG (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well composed, nice rays of light. Seems we have almost too many FPs of the same place though... -- Thennicke (talk) 07:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I understand your point on this. Yes, we do have many FPs of this lake. However, there are various distinct views, and it looks quite different during the winter. What it amounts to is that Johann has decided to concentrate on taking photos of this town and lake. I think that's a legitimate thing for an artist to do, and his focus on Pörtschach am Wörthersee is not at all total. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for your nomination as well as for your warming and approving words, Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I've really been enjoying your winter pictures. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support because while I think it is FP-quality there have been a lot of pictures of this lake in winter. Daniel Case (talk) 03:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per KennyOMG.--Karelj (talk) 09:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Motif, composition and light incidence are wowing me. --Milseburg (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Wiese am Strandbadweg -- 2016 -- 5670-6.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2017 at 19:23:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Ice
Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some weeks ago on QI. I like this quite a lot, let's see if it's good enough as an FP. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your nomination. --XRay ^talk 06:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! --Basotxerri (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Made my day. – Lucas ^T 19:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit soft on the left side, but who cares. Wow! --cart-Talk 20:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! I added a note for a dustspot Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Thanks for your advice. I just removed the dustspot. --XRay ^talk 06:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Clever. Charles (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support all already said.--Jebulon (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very Nice!--Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 05:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Fix the dust spot, but what a fantastic closeup of frost! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Maire (talk) 09:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 04:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support So simple yet so strong. Daniel Case (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reguyla (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--g. balaxaZe★ 20:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Landgericht Berlin, Littenstraße, Eingangshalle (2), 160906, ako.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2017 at 17:03:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created by Ansgar Koreng - uploaded by Ansgar Koreng - nominated by Moheen Reeyad -- ~ Moheen ^(talk) 17:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ~ Moheen ^(talk) 17:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is quite a different view to the other PFs on this building (this 360 panorama and this conventional photo). This image won the first prize in the international finale of Wiki Loves Monuments 2016. -- Colin (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Congratulations to the winner again. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obvious support -- Thennicke (talk) 05:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for nominating, Moheen Reeyad. --Code (talk) 07:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support All details are beautiful --Michielverbeek (talk) 08:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course. --cart-Talk 13:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 09:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly qualified support A little chaotic visually, but makes up for that in the fine detail and the way it conveys the vast space it shows. Daniel Case (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reguyla (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 08:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Зимска утринска измаглица во долината на Богомила.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2017 at 15:22:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Petrovnik - uploaded by Petrovnik - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ The scene is fantastic. The sharpness isn't good, but the subject is quite distant (equivalent of a 300mm lens used) and the weather conditions not clear, so that might be forgivable. There are a lot of dust spots, many of which are visible at standard screen size. -- Colin (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question @Colin: Can you please mark the areas with dust spots so that I can remove them?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've gone ahead and removed them. Creator can revert or upload his own if preferred. -- Colin (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Just love it. The tones, the vanishing perspective, the mood... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support now that it's cleaned up, thanks. Making such heavy formations look delicate is just a great job. --cart-Talk 13:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice photo now. Charles (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another one for the "visual Xanax" series ... Daniel Case (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes. That's really FP with a huge Wow. --XRay ^talk 17:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 08:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ceiling of Salon de Vénus du Château de Versailles.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2017 at 10:44:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question Hi Livio, How did you take this picture ?--Jebulon (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Mile (talk) 06:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I would have preferred if you hadn't cropped the far circles at the top and bottom, but I won't withhold a support vote over that kind of minor disagreement. This is really good work and deserves a star. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Paysandisia archon MHNT Caterpillar Fronton.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2017 at 10:37:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info created and uploaded by Didier Descouens - nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 10:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Caterpillar on catwalk. --cart-Talk 12:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Museum quality. Charles (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hight EV, excellent quality and wow disgusting --The Photographer 14:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you to Thennicke for this appointment. It is a great dilemma for a narturist to have in his garden Paysandisia archon and to see die these palm trees. I resist the chemical means and I cut trees when they are infested. At the hottest time of the day I pursue the butterflies with a bamington racket. They are very large, fly badly, and often land on the leaf they have just left. Sporting solution but limited. It is better to see them in photographs ...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Reguyla (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 15:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ugly! --Milseburg (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~★ nmaia ^d 16:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. Impressive closeup! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RegioJet class 193 Strečno.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2017 at 05:20:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
Info RegioJet 400 Košice - Bratislava pictured at Strečno, Slovakia.
Info created and uploaded by Kabelleger - nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 05:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 05:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A really fantastic picture! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sky produces a very calm atmosphere that brings out the saturation of the greenery. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nicely composed. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 08:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 09:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support just great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 13:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reguyla (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 09:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~★ nmaia ^d 16:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on support Daniel Case (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I dislike this railway company. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Puente de Olaranbe 05.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2017 at 17:20:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I had this on my list of possible FP nominees, too. My only hesitation is that I wonder if people will object to the sun. I don't. I think this is a striking scene and a good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks Ikan. Regarding the sun, I could have cropped it out but I believe it's an essential element of this image. Perhaps someone won't accept it, let's see. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm afraid I'm one of the sun-dislikers. Charles (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan – Lucas ^T 22:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm one of the sun-non-objecters --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Having the sun on the pic sets off the sun glints on the railing just fine, it adds to the photo. Well done! --cart-Talk 08:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The sun I find somewhat disturbing. Perhaps it is nearly cut from the sun better for me. Then the glow remains visible.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support great! --Ralf Roleček 21:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Given the symmetry in the image one would have of course wished for the sun to be dead center, but cart explains very well why it works better for it to be off to the side. Daniel Case (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done! --Michielverbeek (talk) 08:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles. lNeverCry 09:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Ezarateesteban 20:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dülmen, Wildpark -- 2017 -- 6075-81 (bw).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2017 at 17:30:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info I like this kind of tree. The black-and-white photograph emphasizes the structure. It's one photograph of a small series of photographs. // all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 17:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 17:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose See below. --cart-Talk 17:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in favor of the color version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info But I like the colored version too. My favourite is the black-and-white photograph. May be yours is the colored one. // all by XRay too -- XRay ^talk 17:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support In this case I'd go for the color version. The B&W may bring out some structure, but nothing that's not visible in the color version, the loss of color doesn't add anything to the photo. The B&W also loses some of the dept you see in the color one. --cart-Talk 17:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very peaceful, interesting photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @XRay: , could you try raising the levels in the RAW file, locally inside the cavity? I'd find this photo much more enticing with more detail visible in there as this is the main purpose of this photo. – Lucas ^T 22:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try it and I think it is possible. --XRay ^talk 06:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucasbosch: Now it's improved in the middle. Thanks for your hint. IMO it's better now. --XRay ^talk 05:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@XRay: I was hoping for a more drastic change in brighness in the shadows, but it seems you would have needed to make a second, brighter, exposure for that and combine it as a HDR image for the effect I was looking for. – Lucas ^T 09:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this may be possible. IMO it is not natural. It would be too much HDR look. There was much dynamic in the light. In the background the sun and nearly darkness inside the tree. Just for your information: the seven images have an exposure time from 30s to 1/20 s (f/13, ISO 100). --XRay ^talk 10:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support The color version brings out the earthiness of this scene. The composition is a bit cluttered, but the immensity of the trees and the way it has been hollowed out comes through loud and clear. Daniel Case (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

The chosen alternative is: File:Dülmen, Wildpark -- 2017 -- 6075-81.jpg

File:Green monkey (Chlorocebus sabaeus) juvenile head.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2017 at 22:01:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info A monkey that used to be endemic to West Africa, though it made its way to the West Indies on slave ships. This youngster has a slight squint. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 06:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think if you darkened the bokeh somewhat, it would really help the monkey's face pop out for the viewer. Right now, I find the lack of contrast a problem. I know there's a kind of purism among FPC regulars about not changing the colors of bokeh at will, and I really don't understand it, because since bokeh isn't actually what a viewer would see if viewing this scene in person, anyway, why is altering it at will something deplorably dishonest? Sure, if it were a less blurred bokeh, that would be a different story, but given what you have to work with, why not darken it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: I was bored, so I tried what you suggested: File:Green monkey (Chlorocebus sabaeus) juvenile head processing experiment.jpg and I agree it would help the image a lot. This is not super accurate masking and working from a limited 8-bit jpg, I would like it better if Charles does it with his source files or provides the RAW. – Lucas ^T 20:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Much more pleasant and restful to look at. I feel a bit of eye strain looking at the current version of this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per above discussion, I feel the contrast to the background is not enough ~~and the eye reflections distracting~~. I would volunteer to fix the BG (like this) with the source file to get best possible quality. The raw file could be uploaded here: [2] – Lucas ^T 20:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think I agree with getting rid of eye reflections. Those are natural and expected. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I was experimenting a bit with those on how well I could make them disappear. ;) – Lucas ^T 21:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting ideas on artificially altering the background, but not for my images. Sorry. I'm not a total purist, but we all draw our own lines in the sand. The colours you have created just don't occur in the forest. Charles (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But other darker colors do. I'm going to weakly Oppose a feature on the basis of a lack of pleasant contrast between the monkey's face and the background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The neutral background draws attention to the bright eyes. The alternatives proposed negated that effect. Charles (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your reasoning. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Like the edit by Lucas too. J e e 04:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 08:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:La Madone de São Paulo painting by Alexis Diaz and INTI in São Paulo downtown.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2017 at 17:22:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media#Religion
Info created by Alexis Diaz and INTI, photogaphed, uploaded and nominated by The Photographer -- The Photographer 17:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. It's a little dark but I really like it. Reguyla (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 06:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 16:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~★ nmaia ^d 16:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Saffron finch (Sicalis flaveola) male.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2017 at 20:51:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info The saffron finch is known in Brazil as the canary and unfortunately it is sometimes kept as a caged bird. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - FP for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 16:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reguyla (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 10:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Slightly grainy but otherwise excellent. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little soft around the eye but so what ... Daniel Case (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 16:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Add Family/Order Charles. --Mile (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Charles (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 07:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)e[reply]

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

File:Umm al-Fahm, June 11, 2014.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2017 at 15:30:01 (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 Moataz1997 - nominated by ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's an informative photo but those dark trees and the rest of the plants in the foreground blocks the view and really spoils it. Even though many photographers like to include some foliage in photos of views to frame the pic, it rarely works that way. Instead it becomes a 'barrier', hindering the viewer to be drawn into the photo. --cart-Talk 17:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per cart. --Cayambe (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per cart. I'd like to see views of Umm al-Fahm from different angles without trees blocking things as in this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per cart. The color is also a little off to me, perhaps an inevitable consequence of the last edit (and at any rate I can thank the uploader for teaching me a little Arabic photo-editing vocabulary) ... the clouds seem a little pinkish. Daniel Case (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~★ nmaia ^d 16:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vinesh Antani.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2017 at 17:02:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Meet antani - uploaded by Meet antani - nominated by Nizil Shah -- Nizil Shah (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I recently created an article on this novelist and found this fine image. Such images of Indian authors are not found in Commons easily. Images is well focused, well exposed and balanced.-- Nizil Shah (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A bit on the small side, but a good portrait even if it is a rather normal studio photo. Unfortunately, the shirt buttons are overexposed and a bit disturbing. Any chance of toning down those? --cart-Talk 17:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do not know how to process images digitally to do it. But any experienced editor can help. :)--Nizil Shah (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nizil Shah:

Done I toned them down – Lucas ^T 20:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucasbosch: , thank you very much.--Nizil Shah (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Sorry, cut hand bothers me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I admit the tight crops bother me, and I wish this picture could have been bigger, but the face and eyes are what should work and they work for me. Daniel Case (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but per Ikan Kekek: Cut hand. --Code (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014 Nowa Ruda, rynek 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2017 at 11:19:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A beautiful plaza and a good sky, very well photographed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support though it would be ideal if resolution were higher. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry to break the streak but ... I find the composition a little too cluttered (the signs are a little distracting) and it seems a little overprocessed—note not only the oversharpening but that posterized area on the cloud. I feel bad doing this, since this is the sort of picture I used to take and feel really good about myself for, but it's only just a QI for me. Daniel Case (talk) 07:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Undecided composition, I don't know what to focus on here. – Lucas ^T 18:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Lucas -- Thennicke (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~★ nmaia ^d 16:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Good enough for FP--Ermell (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the focus is that yellow building and the square.--g. balaxaZe★ 17:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Candle light projected through a glass orb.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2017 at 11:02:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info A fun little science experiment that I actually saw by accident when I had these objects on my desk. -- cart-Talk 11:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 11:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! I like everything about this -- Thennicke (talk) 11:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really artistic composition and lighting. Charles (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me, a soothing balanced composition.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really good, indeed! Nice composition and a very sophisticated idea! --Basotxerri (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very special.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Agnes. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 07:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Nice to see something so stunning and different. Looks like it should be cover art for something. Daniel Case (talk) 07:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well executed. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! ~ Moheen ^(talk) 17:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support No more comment is needed.--Jebulon (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd strongly favor a tighter crop from all sides to emphasize the projection better. Also cutting into shadows. Right now it's not imminently clear what the image wants to show, if it was tighter around the candle and the glass ball with the projection, it would better in my view. I would change my vote then, of course. Good image nevertheless. – Lucas ^T 22:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per others. --Code (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Lucas. I dont find projection well, especially orb in the middle. I suppose there was more editing since i see banding on black/white pass. Above all, is candle burning in white color ? It wasnt mentioned that temp was changed from yellow. --Mile (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the artistry of this shot. Reguyla (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Border Wall at Tijuana and San Diego Border.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2017 at 02:45:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mexico has already paid for the wall, dearly... -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good composition and moving. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Tomascastelazo: Please add a FP category and GPS coordinates. – Lucas ^T 09:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And normal categories too, because Commons ≠ Flickr and Commons has categories rather than tags. --A.Savin 09:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And a category above. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral It's a small file and the perspective seems wrong (tower leaning for example). It's also too dark. But otherwise I would support. -- Thennicke (talk) 11:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not tiny: A little over 5.5 MP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: it's not tiny. But it's small. -- Thennicke (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As is said above, once the leaning tower and the faulty categories are fixed, you'll have my support. The categories on your other pics were fixed by other users, but you've been around long enough to be able to fix this yourself. --cart-Talk 12:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow and relevant. (Information added; categories corrected.) J e e 03:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC) Duplicate vote. J e e 12:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Timely, and a striking image in and of itself (Contrast how we fence our other border). Daniel Case (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~★ nmaia ^d 16:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 05:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mülheim-Ruhr - Schlossbrücke 03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2017 at 19:52:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Germany
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't get this. Surely this sort of view should have something special going for it, but I can't find it... Charles (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I`m in favor of this kind of compositions. And it wows me. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the symmetry. Daniel Case (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice symmetry and perspective; most people generally wouldn't go under a bridge to try to find something nice to photograph, which makes it more unique. WClarke (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 04:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately, but not symmetric. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not easy to capture, the scene has a very high dynamic range. I'd be intersted in seeing it in b/w, too. --Code (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Code: : Here you are. I think in this case, I prefer the colour version. --Basotxerri (talk) 08:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I like them both. Maybe you should add a little bit more contrast to the b/w version, but it's already good this way. --Code (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done You're right, thanks! --Basotxerri (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very cool image. Reguyla (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Mülheim-Ruhr - Schlossbrücke 03.jpg

File:The Perch at Binsey, January 2017.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2017 at 17:57:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Peter Trimming - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 17:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info a 17th-century Grade II listed building, and an example of English architecture from the time; a nicely composed picture that is sharp and of historic value. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 17:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please explain why you like this photo and support featuring it. I'm not seeing that but would like to consider what you have to say. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your query, I've added some more info at the top. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that. My feeling, though, is that the composition is perfectly OK but not great and exceptional. I think I'd want more sky, possibly a brighter day (though I realize those are at a premium in the UK) or time of day, and for the photo to extend further right and encompass the rest of the structure if possible. Therefore, in the end, I do Oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I like this shot. Cycle bothers, but i miss some more light to plus it. --Mile (talk) 07:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Bad light conditions. -- -donald- (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm just not wowed. A QI perhaps. Daniel Case (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Banknote portrait pattern (Intaglio print, tactile effect).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2017 at 07:17:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media#Portrait
Info Banknote portrait pattern made with intaglio printing. Denomination: 1000 Hungarian forint. -- Mile (talk) 07:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 07:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~★ nmaia ^d 16:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice of the Hungarian National Bank to allow this to be a free image. Daniel Case (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is such an unusual and interesting photo that not supporting a feature seems bizarre to me. That said, if you decide to take similar pictures in the future, cropping a bit further from the eye would be ideal, compositionally. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fountain pen writing (literacy).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2017 at 21:45:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info Created and uploaded by Mile - nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I saw this at QIC and thought it was great! -- Slaunger (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree, it is beautiful. The only tiny thing that bothers me is that the text is upside down. It would have looked more natural if the photo was taken like the pen had just been lifted after writing on the paper. Most folks don't write upside down. --cart-Talk 21:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: That's not upside down text. It's Cyrillic script ... "работа" at right and "всегда" at left, with something incomplete on the right side of the pen nib next to it. Daniel Case (talk) 07:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: I meant that the text is "upside down" in relation to the direction of the pen, not the viewer. It would look more natural if the pen was in writing position in relation to the text. Growing up next to the CCCP you do get to pick up a bit of knowledge about Cyrillic script. ;) (there is also a comma in the text to guide you if you don't know the letters) --cart-Talk 08:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to explain; why diagonal, simple - because of composition. That white, unwriten, triangle in corner have some meaning, and nib is pointing to it. Putting this straight would be bad idea. Not just compo, but straight line of white would be strange, even if i would fill half line. Most of all, this go like this. Compo is fine, and i spent more time making compo than shooting itselve. But you can also see Google search, writing text result, see where pen is included. --Mile (talk) 09:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC) p.S. You have left diagonal (text) and right diagonal (pen), that work.[reply]

Not suggesting straight lines but a 180° rotation of just the text (diagonal text is best), and it was only a small consideration, not enough to make into a big thing. I have 'supported' it and all is well. --cart-Talk 11:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lucas ^T 22:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good, i would nominate this also. Thanx Slaunger. --Mile (talk) 07:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I also would change the text direction to upside and place the pen upside down in a natural writing position. -- -donald- (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@-donald-: See my note to cart above. It's not upside-down Latin, but right-side up Cyrillic. Daniel Case (talk) 07:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- -donald-: The {{Weak support}} template is not a recognised FPC voting template. I have changed to {{Support}} with Weak Support as optional argument, as I assume this was your intent. Please change to {{Neutral}} if you feel you cannot fully support the candidate. -- Slaunger (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per cart. --Basotxerri (talk) 07:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, exceptionally sharp with lots of detail. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good catch. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Anyway, I agree that the position should be better. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Comment Some kind of colour fringe / CA at the right top. --A.Savin 04:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reflextion. --Mile (talk) 06:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love it! $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 19:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent --Llez (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Prague 07-2016 Charles Bridge John of Nepomuk statue img1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2017 at 06:05:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
Info All by A.Savin --A.Savin 06:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 06:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good light and the right moment to shoot with the head in a clear patch of blue sky. --cart-Talk 11:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find the light too harsh --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 10:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the cobwebbing that shows up in full-res. Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lucas ^T 19:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~★ nmaia ^d 16:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 11:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rok Vilčnik.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2017 at 09:55:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Urška Lukovnjak (with OTRS permission) - uploaded & nominated by me -- Miha (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Miha (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ - Very good portrait. It's a pity a bit of his hair is cropped out, but I support, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A striking and interesting portrait. The slight cropped hair is totally in line with common practice for editorial photos and doesn't bother me at all. --cart-Talk 11:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I didn't know that. People seem to always object to any crops in a person's head on FPC and QIC. It'll be interesting if no-one votes against featuring this photo for want of a few hairs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do a google search for say "politician" and you either find photos with either the whole head or with the unruly top hairs cut off. This brings the eyes up and makes you concentrate on the face instead of the "bad hair day", making the person look more serious and closer to you. --cart-Talk 13:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; we see more tighter crops in professional portrait photography. J e e 03:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, cart and Jee. I'll keep this in mind. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very expressive portrait, and the shallow DOF gives focus to the eyes and good bokeh. I tend to think though that the DOF is a bit too shallow as his nose and lower mouth section is very much OOF. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 03:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am not sure about DoF. Too shallow; nose, mouth probably are out of even from hyperfocal distance. Would be good to see EXIF. --Mile (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose focus and cropping issues. Charles (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I do like a good shallow-DoF portrait, and the eyes are sharp, the fact that the mouth is so out of focus is bothersome -- it's the next place one looks after the eyes. So here, I think the DoF (or the angle of his head) is not optimal. -- Colin (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry. I could excuse the upper crop if the rest of the image were cropped with equal severity—but it's not (Frankly, I wonder if the expression on his face means he's about to hit the photographer for doing that ). And once you take Colin's comment to mind and look at his mouth, you can't unsee that no matter how thumby you make the picture. Daniel Case (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a very nice portrait, but the DoF problem isn't ok for me. Focus point must be to the eyes too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing my vote to Oppose, because the critics' arguments are very persuasive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Morning view of Nagarkot 2017.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2017 at 18:18:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Nepal
Info all by me -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 18:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 18:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice view, but for me not with enough substance and value to feature, sorry. Compositional observation: I would have tweaked the crop such that the slope exactly intersected the corners of the frame to make the diagonal more perfect. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Slaunger, the view has potential but it's not quite there yet. --cart-Talk 10:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful atmosphere. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per KoH. Also, I really like the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per cart and Slaunger. Nice atmosphere alright, but feels like it should be part of something bigger. Daniel Case (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Slaunger. --Karelj (talk) 11:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:2016.07.19.-07-Westensee--Westensee--Flussseeschwalbe.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2017 at 20:19:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus : Sterna
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and clean. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The grey sky makes the grey bird not stand out as much. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think this is a great photo, and the contrast is quite sufficient for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think this is a great photo. The pose is poor as is the lighting and I'm not keen on the close crop. Charles (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Given your expertise in bird photography, I respect your position. In what way do you find the pose wanting? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bird photos are nearly always best with the head side on and the body side on too so everything is in focus and you can see the eye. I believe the eye is vital for nearly all animal images. Charles (talk) 13:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just something sublimely simple about it. Daniel Case (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull lighting – Lucas ^T 16:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Und tschüs, bye, adieu. Hockei (talk) 12:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vojaĝo al Aizu 05.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2017 at 16:19:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info created by lando - uploaded by NMaia - nominated by NMaia -- ~★ nmaia ^d 16:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ~★ nmaia ^d 16:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sure why you chose to nominate this image with the trees so soft - quality is what you might expect from a compact camera. The photographer did not have the patience to wait till the photographer in the foreground got out of the way! Charles (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Messy composition with the foreground objects, and aforementioned quality issues. Please submit your images for review at Quality Images before nominating here. This is not mandatory, but good practice for most photographs. – Lucas ^T 16:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unfortunately per others --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Daniel Case (talk) 23:36, 31 January 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: no support votes other than nominator in three days – Lucas ^T 08:03, 2 February 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, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:2016.07.18.-53-Strande--Eiderente-Maennchen im Schlichtkleid.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2017 at 19:46:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not remarkable enough for FP. Common bird. Odd choice of aspect ratio. -- Colin (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are many common FP-birds. I doubt that this is a reason for negative votes. --Hockei (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a reason for a negative vote. It is a reason why we shouldn't accept an unremarkable picture of one. -- Colin (talk) 07:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree. An excellent picture of a common bird is welcome, but I don't find the eye very sharp on this one. Charles (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hockei (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wester reef heron kottayam kerala.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2017 at 09:05:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by deepugn - uploaded by deepugn - nominated by Deepugn -- Deepugn (talk) 09:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very noisy and small. Please have a look at bird pictures that are currently FPs, if you haven't already done so. Those represent the standard to meet to get another bird picture featured. I don't think this photo would be promoted to Quality Image, if nominated at COM:QIC, and it's very unlikely a bird picture of less than solidly excellent sharpness and clarity on the bird would be featured, unless there's something extremely unusual about the bird or view. I hope I didn't go on too long; just hoping to help. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks Ikan for the comment.
Oppose As Ikan. Charles (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination so that i can submit another picture. Thanks for the comments and votes Deepugn (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fringilla coelebs coelebs Josselin 14.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2017 at 19:57:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info created by Tsaag Valren - uploaded by Tsaag Valren - nominated by Tsaag Valren -- Tsaag Valren (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tsaag Valren (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality not even at QI level. Charles (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. --Basotxerri (talk) 21:43, 1 February 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: unsufficient quality – Lucas ^T 07:59, 2 February 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, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Costa de San Vicente, El Grove, Pontevedra, España, 2015-09-23, DD 82-84 HDR.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2017 at 19:55:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Sunset in the Saint Vicent Coast, O Grove, Pontevedra, Spain. The scene belongs to the Umia-O Grove reserve area, a protected area in Galicia since 1995, that also includes Ría de Arousa, one of the five Rías Baixas. The area is well-known for its particular rock formations. Poc o² 19:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 19:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Diego, I may have got this completely wrong, and if so apologise, but there seems to be an orange halo/shadow all along the top of the rocks. Charles (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I see what you're seeing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True, will fix that tomorrow Poc o² 22:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan, Charles: I just uploaded a new version Poc o² 20:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all gone now. Charles (talk) 10:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, but the lighting isn't wowing me. We have an ordinary cloudless sunset, with unilluminated rocks in the foreground. Having a rule of thirds with 2/3 being sky is not optimal when the sky is empty. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose, somewhat per KoH: I love the rocks, but the featureless sky "flattens out" the picture, in painting-analysis terms. Effectively, in this context, it stops eye movement. That's why some clouds might help. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Ikan and King. Daniel Case (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 18:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Madeira levada Ribeiro Frio Balcões 2016 4.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2017 at 21:09:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created, uploaded and nominated by User:Karelj -- Karelj (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blown-out clouds with fringing all around, and we normally expect landscapes to be more than 4 MP unless there are mitigating reasons. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per KoH, mountains a little bit unsharp and also at the limit on oversaturated. -- -donald- (talk) 07:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blown out clouds, small for a landscape and the composition with the focus on the leaves obstructing the view is a bit unfortunate, hindering the viewer to be drawn into the photo. If the leaves of the tree was the main subject, the species should be in the description and categories. --cart-Talk 10:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per cart. Well below the standard for an FP in this area. Daniel Case (

talk) 20:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't like the branches in the front --Michielverbeek (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I withdraw my nomination. --Karelj (talk) 10:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin-Mitte, 170128, ako.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2017 at 17:36:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Exhibition Hall of the German Historical Museum at dawn. Architect of the building: Ieoh Ming Pei. I've waited more than a year until I could finally take this photograph. The problem has been that there were always objects in front of the building. Sometimes there were bikes, sometimes cars, sometimes some strange (and large) pieces of art. Then I had to wait for a while for perfect light conditions. Now I finally got the picture I wanted. I hope you like it as much as I do. I know that there's a small amount of graininess on the right side where the sky is brighter. I don't think I could really avoid that. As you might notice the aperture already was quite wide with f/7.1 and a longer exposure time would have ruined the light situation (and would have caused star trails), so I had to increase the ISO speed up to 800. Additionally I have to say that in situations like these you often only have the choice between a small amount of noise or a little bit of posterization and in these cases I prefer the noise. Photograph created, uploaded and nominated by me. -- Code (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Code (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light and very elegant. I'm glad you didn't cut the bollards to make this 16:9. --cart-Talk 18:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, ha, you saw my suggestion to Code. Well, it wasn't so much making it 16:9 as getting rid of the road. -- Colin (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support The noise in the sky is marginal compared to the composition and mood, details are good too. If it is not FP then not much should be IMO. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. Compliments on your untraily stars, in addition to everything else. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support absolutely great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technically very well executed. Charles (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Christian. Daniel Case (talk) 06:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! -- Wolf im Wald 16:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support bit noisy (should be reduced), but still good enough for a FP --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done! --Michielverbeek (talk) 08:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on support – Lucas ^T 16:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zayapa (Grapsus grapsus), Cerro Brujo, isla de San Cristóbal, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-24, DD 151.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2017 at 20:56:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info Red rock crab (Grapsus grapsus) alone in danger in front of a tsunami :), Cerro Brujo, San Cristobal Island, Galapagos Islands, Ecuador. All by me, Poc o² 20:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 20:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good light, colors and composition. The milky water background is unusual and gives it wow in my opinion. Could you add a geolocation, please? -- Slaunger (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 08:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good and unusual. Although I can't help seeing it like the crab is trying to escape becomming part of the boiling bouillabaisse below. Or maybe I'm just too fond of seafood... ;) --cart-Talk 10:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too blurred for me and it does not show the crab at all well. This image shows how colorful the crab actually is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesjsharp (talk • contribs) Poc o² 13:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: : With "blurred" you refer to the crab?. To me it looks crispy apart from the eye in the back (out of focus) and a leg which was probably moving, but I don't believe that we can talk about too much blur.
Yes the moving crab and the stationary rock. 1/250 sec. works to blur the sea nicely, but doesn't make the Sally Lightfoot crab crisp enough. And I'm not sure why we would want to feature a picture of the boring backside of one of the most colourful crabs in the world. Charles (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I don't see any issue with colors here. These crabs are colorful in the front, as it could be seen in this related FP, in this case I'm showing the back. Poc o² 14:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My impression, Charles, is that you may be evaluating this picture from a strict encyclopedic point of view. My purpose here was not to depict the crab in the best possible way to illustrate an article in Wikipedia, as I could have looked for in the the other image but rather a peculiar situation in the fauna world with an acceptable quality and composition. Poc o² 20:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Don't see any problems with sharpness of the crab, and we see it's back stripes and dots, plus good environmental image. -- Colin (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lucas ^T 19:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reguyla (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I haven't been sure I liked this photo since it was nominated, but I looked at it again and like the composition at full-page size. Looking at most of the bokeh sandy water at full size isn't advisable, but it serves a good purpose at smaller sizes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Echt judasoor (Auricularia auricula-judae) Familie Auriculariaceae op een dode tak 03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2017 at 06:56:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Fungi # Auricularia auricula-judae # Family: Auriculariaceae.
Info Auricularia auricula-judae Family auriculariaceae on dead branch. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support a bit creepy but well taken! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martin. --cart-Talk 09:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good DoF. It illustrates Auricularia perfectly. Charles (talk) 11:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice shot! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --g. balaxaZe★ 16:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 19:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like a scrunched-up sliced ham. Very appealing colors. Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Perhaps not super-sharp at full size, but it's a huge file and there are great details on the auriculum. Plus, I really like the shapes of the fungus, which I believe inspired you by looking something like a human face. Well placed within the picture frame, in my opinion, and a fine picture to run on the front page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Is auriculum the right word? I tried to do a back-formation from auricularia, but I think I guessed wrong. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- - Answer: It is Auricularia auricula-judae.zie https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judasoor --Famberhorst (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support However, the green seems to me a little bit “poisonous“. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 19:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Michelangelo's Moses (Rome).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2017 at 09:01:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, but the railing cutting the bottom of the statue is bothersome. There are a lot of photos of this sculpture in Category:Michelangelo's Moses in which the bottom of the sculpture is not cut by the railing, so it seems to be possible to take a better photo of this motif that I would vote to feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per IK. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 17:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 06:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~★ nmaia ^d 16:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 19:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:San Francisco City Hall, nighttime, 31 January 2017.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2017 at 06:00:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by kugutsumen - uploaded by kugutsumen - nominated by Kugutsumen -- Kugutsumen (talk) 06:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kugutsumen (talk) 06:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like colors here. I would plus it but you need to correct distortion. --Mile (talk) 06:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose hmm, perspective needs to be corrected, a bit too noisy and much too dark, sorry. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, and there is pixellation in the sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 19:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kazan church edit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2017 at 18:30:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings
Info created by Maarten Dirkse - uploaded by Böhringer - nominated by Godhulii_1985 -- Godhulii 1985 (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Not sure how those smokes on right side will be perceived. Also, not sure about tight cropping on bottom-left. But I like this picture very much therefore nominating. Godhulii 1985 (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Godhulii 1985: You can still add your own support vote if you want – Lucas ^T 18:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I can't live with that crop, sorry. BTW, the image is leaning in and there has happened something strange with the lower border. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Question, perspective correction, lens or software? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Beautiful colors. Quality can be better given the resolution. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question per Basotxerri, could you possibly add the rest of the mosque on the left and then do a perspective correction? This motif is really picturesque, but as things stand, I don't think I could honestly say this is one of the best composed photos on the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Trying to process this pic year-two ago. No luck. Here neither. --Mile (talk) 06:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose May not be the photographer's fault entirely but light and colors make it look more like CGI than a photograph of an actual structure. Daniel Case (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree there is something wrong with the image--g. balaxaZe★ 21:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alabama State Capitol, Montgomery, West view 20160713 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2017 at 12:04:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info The Alabama State Capitol in Montgomery. I realize that there are some imperfections (would be nicer without that Camry, but at least it is apparently among the most American cars these days; also the heat causes some unsharpness at the bottom), but I still think that it works well to depict a rather nice building. c/u/n by me, DXR (talk) 12:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- DXR (talk) 12:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Compositionally more than just QI. --Code (talk) 04:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A bit too dark for me; none of the whites are close to blowing out. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks KoH, I think you have a point. I have moderately brightened and slightly pushed the shadows. I hope this is fine with everybody --DXR (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Measured support taking in King's comment, and that overall the colors are perhaps different from how I would have handled them. But it's still good. Daniel Case (talk) 07:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, not quite convincing to me, due to the trees and the car. --A.Savin 04:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, exactly per A.Savin. The big tree in particular really bothers me in this context. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per A. Savin.--Karelj (talk) 11:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per A.Savin. Escpecially the car and the STOP sign are spoiling the symmetry. -— Draceane ^talk_contrib. 13:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 06:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tanks of WWI.ogv, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2017 at 12:23:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by Unknown - uploaded by Brian0918 and Moogsi - nominated by Tiven2240 -- Tiven2240 (talk) 12:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tiven2240 (talk) 12:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Its more a VI than FP. --Mile (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Agreed. Interesting, but the picture quality is too poor for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mile and Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Нежилови Стени доцна наесен.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2017 at 14:42:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info See the man standing at the edge of the crag and those walking along it as indication for the size. Created by Petrovnik - uploaded by Petrovnik - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in favor of the other version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Comment This one is an alternative version without the cropped shrub on the bottom of the image. Created by Petrovnik - uploaded by Kiril Simeonovski - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better, also because of the more appropriate aspect ratio – Lucas ^T 15:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ГПС ? Сакав да побарам каде е.--Mile (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ова е на планината Јакупица, покрај патот кон врвот Солунска Глава. Ќе додадам координати.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiril Simeonovski: Yes, please add GPS coordinates, I forgot to check that before I voted support – Lucas ^T 17:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Geotag added.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the lighting and the composition. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 06:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has potential, but can you bring out the hills in the background? - at the moment they are barely visible. Charles (talk) 09:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I can do it myself. Perhaps anyone with advanced knowledge in image editing could help.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --cart-Talk 16:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~★ nmaia ^d 16:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --g. balaxaZe★ 20:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive. --B. Jankuloski (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Code (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Нежилови Стени доцна наесен (алт.).jpg

File:Burgruine Kollmitz 8619.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2017 at 21:22:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info created & uploaded by Hamster28 - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose great picture! Unfortunately there are some severe technical issues, esp. CAs. Sorry --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I know it is hard to make aerial photos, but you have a good cam, please use ISO 100 and fix the CAs afterwards. Otherwise very good. -- -donald- (talk) 07:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sure this can be counted as an aerial photo since those are generally taken from a drone or a plane. Given the camera used and the fact that the ruin also have two very high, accessible towers, this is probably a "ground-based" photo. It is certainly an interesting angle of a ruin that we don't often see, but the composition is a bit lacking. I keep wanting to move the camera to the right and a bit down so that the uninteresting left part of the pic was skipped and more of the sunlight on the river, plus a bit more of the ruin, came into the photo. Plus there are the tech problems. --cart-Talk 10:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Martin and cart ... I would also add to the enumeration of the tech problems the softness in the background and, rather in (ahem) contrast, the near-oversharpening on the ruins themselves, as if someone had fixed them with a brush (addendum: Why ISO 400 for this?). The trees in the background are also distorted beyond what I would accept. Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that it could use a geotag. Daniel Case (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose bad crop/compo --Mile (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crater rim - seen from cape Akrotiri - Santorini - Greece - 04.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2017 at 21:11:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created & uploaded by NorbertNagel - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good composition and lighting, but quality issues prevent me from supporting: 1) the red channel in the light-colored rocks is blown out, causing the textures to be partially lost; 2) for an 8 MP image, the top left corner is a bit unsharp. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per King; I could support if those issues were addressed. Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 07:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Checkerboard forest in Idaho.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2017 at 06:10:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created by Koavf · uploaded by Koavf · nominated by Koavf —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose A lot of wow, but really this image quality is too bad for me -- Thennicke (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Koavf, thanks for nominating the photo, but your "Info" line is wrong. You didn't create the picture, and it's unclear who uploaded it, but you did nominate it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And on my vote, I very reluctantly agree with Thennicke and Oppose. I think this is a very important photo to nominate for VI, though. The scope in COM:VIC should be "Forests in Idaho, checkerboard forest photographed from the International Space Station". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated it at COM:VIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: Thanks. I have a lot of trouble with templates at Commons for some reason--they always seem poorly-documented to me and I don't spend a lot of time here so I don't always remember the procedures. I'll just I withdraw my nomination for now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017 Ballantine's Finest.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2017 at 18:10:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd love to see this on a darker background instead. As it is the top of the bottle has not enough separation from the background and the glass has the same problem. They both nearly dissolve into the gray background. – Lucas ^T 18:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucas: You probably have badly calibrated monitor, in my monitor clear difference. Look here. RGB values on the background is: 235, 235 and 235, and on he bottle is 238, 236 and 224. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacek Halicki: I do see that color difference there, no worries. What I meant was that in general, a white background is not a good choice for a nearly white object to show in a product photograph, same with the glass, even if you are able to still see the boundary and the edge is in focus. (with the glass the back edge is not even in focus, making it worse). So while you call that a "clear difference", photographically it is far from ideal and in my view a darker background would help the image a lot, even for those with good vision and monitor ... – Lucas ^T 19:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Regretfully, I have to agree with Lucas. This may be Fifty Shades of Grey(or White) but the whites are too close to each other to make it a wow-y photo, setting is also a bit pedestrian for me since there are so many cool things you can do with glasses and whisky. (And I did calibrate my monitor only yesterday.) Sorry. --cart-Talk 19:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Lucas. lNeverCry 21:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As the person who promoted this to QI and nominated it for VI, I agree with the others. It's a very good photo, but to be an FP, it would need a more contrasting background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak support Although I'd always stick to my Lagavulin and Laphroaig, from a photographic point of view all that criticism might be a bit over the top. While a black background could be interesting, sure, I'm fine with this straightforward product shot. As for the rather standard presentation/composition, however, Cart's right. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The setting, showing whisky and a glass, with a white base/background is just weird. If it was just the bottle, then as a "on white" product shot, I could understand (though still hard to be wowed by an image I'd recognise from a Tesco online grocery shop, and I'd expect the background to be pure white and the base to not be paper). But if you pour a glass of whisky then you are making a scene where it is being drunk and enjoyed. Whisky should be photographed just like we would food photography -- with care to dress the table and background and arrange the ambient light so that one anticipates enjoying what one sees. For a glass whisky bottle, this is a classic opportunity to demonstrate some skill with back lighting to make the contents positively glow from within, like the liquid does when you drink it. I'm afraid this bottle has all the inner glow of a cough mixture from Boots and the glass all the appeal of the plastic cup my dentist offers me to rince my mouth. It isn't enough to expose and focus correctly. A great product shot should instill some desire. -- Colin (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shizhao: you need to state a reason why you oppose, even if it is just a "per User" when you agree with User's remarks. – Lucas ^T 14:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Jacek Halicki (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:FaroCastillodelMoro-Cuba-ene2017.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2017 at 20:31:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#North-America
Info all by me Ezarateesteban 20:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 20:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many dust spots to be removed from the sky. --C messier (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @C messier: if there are more dust spots please appoint it, Regards!!! Also denoised sky Ezarateesteban 13:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Dust spots are very visible in the current version - there are big ones to the right and left of the lighthouse - but also, I don't find the composition great. Everything seems to just sit there, with no help for my eyes to move around from the sky and only a horizontal movement from the sea in front. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I see that much effort has been expended to get rid of the dust spots, and that's a good thing, there are greater problems than dust. I don't find any wow in the composition, and the color of the sky is a little off. Daniel Case (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shizhao: you need to state a reason why you oppose, even if it's just "per User" for agreeing with User's remarks – Lucas ^T 15:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And this guy [3] is a administrator here people!

--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I think better nominate another picture, regards!!!Ezarateesteban 22:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black anodised aluminium heatsinks 6.5–35 mm width.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2017 at 13:52:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others_2
Info Focus stack of small Heat sinks. All by me – Lucas ^T 13:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lucas ^T 13:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is some beauty in these patterns. --cart-Talk 09:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose definitely very well executed. The quality is stunning, but alas, I'm not wowed at all. Maybe just too technical... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm wowed -- Thennicke (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not wowed, I'm afraid. Charles (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm wowed. ;-) — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per cart. I've always found heatsinks to be an unusually aesthetically pleasing piece of computer hardware. Daniel Case (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Martin --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Missing some more here. First, i think this just cant be FP in any case. But maybe in some remarkable shot, while seted inside PC, on lot of heat, maybe via cigar smoke, like passing heat...more action like. --Mile (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Let's not drag this out too long. Thanks for the comments. – Lucas ^T 15:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Münster, Aaseeufer -- 2017 -- 6193-9.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2017 at 16:59:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Germany
Info A night view of the frozen Aasee in Münster, Germany -- all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 16:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 16:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark; the bottom is an unattractive sea of darkness. A crop may convince me to change my mind, though. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per King. Daniel Case (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find it a bit unbalanced with so much going on in the left 2/3 of the pic and then the darkness on the right side. There is also a bit too much going on on the ice where the reflections are being interrupted by chunks of ice and trash. This scene might be better to photograph when the ice has melted and the reflections are cleaner. --cart-Talk 11:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition messy--shizhao (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thank you for all your reviews and comments. --XRay ^talk 14:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Capsized ship out of water, Sète cf01.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2017 at 17:20:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info All by me. -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 06:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shizhao: you need to state a reason why you oppose – Lucas ^T 15:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And this guy [4] is a administrator here people!

--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think, you find the reason here --Llez (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Composition messy --shizhao (talk) 12:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Writing as someone who has taken a similar image that got promoted to FP, I just don't find this picture enough of a standout. It needs more than just being a ship out of water to work for me ... the composition just isn't there and the colors are mundane. Daniel Case (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I find it unfair that we accept support without reason and we don't accept oppose without reason. The question was " do you think this image can be featured? " Shizhao answered "no" , and that is fine for me. Shizhao, if you don't want to answer to them it's fine for me, thank you to have look to my photo :). I withdraw because 2 oppose so quickly is far to much for me to consider this image as FP, and me I like the opinion of others. Thank you. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 05:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The boat is amazing, maybe the problem is the distracting background. Nice Shoot Christian I actually love this boat --The Photographer 13:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Basílica de Nossa Senhora do Carmo, Recife, Pernambuco, Brasil 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2017 at 11:09:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info All by -- The Photographer 11:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very well done, and I love that warm light and the golden surfaces. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 07:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 19:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cresent moon.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2017 at 05:55:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
Info created by deepugn - uploaded by deepugn - nominated by Deepugn -- Deepugn (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We have sharper, more detailed featured pictures of the moon, though not of this crescent phase. There is some colour noise. As a picture of the moon on its own I don't think it reaches FP compared to existing images. As an aside, by coincidence I took my own picture of the moon a couple of days ago File:Waxing Crescent Moon 2017-02-01 UK.jpg. The size of the moon is identical, which suggests this is also taken with a 500mm lens on a crop camera. Also, if you rotate this image 60° anticlockwise, it closely matches mine (except this one is a little fuller). Which shows we all see the same moon, but from different angles depending on where we are on earth! -- Colin (talk) 08:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin. I would also add that it would be nice to spell "crescent" correctly in the filename. Daniel Case (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017 Sigelei Evaya and Kayfun V4.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2017 at 22:06:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I feel bad for opposing because I also submit product photography here on FPC so I don't want to discourage it. 1. As with a previous nomination a few weeks ago, I would stand it up so the display becomes more easily readable, of course not just turn the photo because of the liquid. 2. The topic of shadows is one of taste, many say they like them to keep it looking real. I personally isolate the BG completely nowadays. 3. I find the crop too loose, I see you wanted to keep aspect ratio healthy but in my view a tighter crop is more favorable for products to have more impact. 4. Now to wow factor. We already have a FP of an e cigarette albeit that one is less coorful than this one. I would find it a bit repetitive to have both or even more, maybe make a collage of multiple styles of them and nominate that. I have had a similar problem with my lenses that warranted creating collages of each photo lens for possible FP nomination. Llez also groups his shell photos. 5. A final note: Creating a photo of a e cigarette that emits smoke would be a possibly great, illustrative photo. – Lucas ^T 22:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just an aside: Llez doesn't group shells; instead, in each file, he creates a collage of different views of the same shell. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: Thanks for the correction. I was just thinking about the collage aspect visually and chose the wrong word there. – Lucas ^T 23:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Overall this image looks quite appealing to me. I don't think it's a problem to have multiple FPs of e-cigs when the other one looks nothing like this one. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King--Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not, good and sharp photo and you get the "smiley face" at the bottom of it. (: --cart-Talk 08:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality without being wowing about the detail but wrong orientation Poc o² 19:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Hesitation of Light Blå.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2017 at 14:06:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Denmark
Info created by Michael Harder - uploaded by Godsbanen - nominated by Villy Fink Isaksen -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Getting most of the bridge with the light installation in frame is good for VI but it works less well for an FP. It would have been better to focus on the middle section of this pic and avoid the problems with the ufos at the top, the framework pylons left and right as well as the large expanse of dark tracks. --cart-Talk 09:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - thx for review - I think I will make one my self after our guidelines. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look forward too it. I see that the light installation is part of the Aarhus, Cultural Capital of Europe 2017. Guess that will result in a whole new category of events. :) --cart-Talk 11:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Teatro Amazonas - escadas.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2017 at 01:21:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Marcelo Camargo/Agência Brasil - uploaded by NMaia - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the dynamics of the composition. Very well implemented. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It looks deformed, but it's not --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support great compo. --Mile (talk) 07:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral beautiful and dynamic - but the theater shouldn't be leaning to the right --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, things are leaning in all the "wrong" directions, but that is what you get from such an unusual perspective and that is what makes the pic come alive. Nice, gutsy nom! --cart-Talk 08:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above 'theater shouldn't be leaning to the right' Charles (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per Charles, I feel some effort for correction should be done to elevate this image even more. – Lucas ^T 12:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In addition to the issues noted above, the blown clouds do it in for me. Daniel Case (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposers --Karelj (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shizhao: You're required to give a reason why you oppose, even if just "per User" when you agree with User's remarks – Lucas ^T 15:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

per Charles--shizhao (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:AB BDe 4-4 Jakobsbad - Urnäsch.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2017 at 10:49:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles#Land vehicles
Info An Appenzeller Bahnen local train (Wasserauen - Gossau SG) passes some nice winter scenery near Urnäsch, Switzerland.
Info created and uploaded by Kabelleger - nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 10:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 10:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a hair too bright? I'm sure it's accurate for such a sunny day, but I think bringing it down 1/3 of a stop or so would improve contrast and saturation, and put a little less strain on the eyes. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Juliancolton: Is your monitor calibrated? The levels are perfect on my own monitor. If anything, slightly on the dark side. -- Thennicke (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Snow definitely shouldn't be any darker than this. The histogram isn't even close to the far right. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lucas ^T 13:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 14:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 08:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 19:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support How could anyone not love this picture? It makes you want to go fix yourself a mug of cocoa right away ... Daniel Case (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 21:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cresent moon in daylight kottayam kerala india.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2017 at 11:51:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
Info created by deepugn - uploaded by deepugn - nominated by Deepugn -- Deepugn (talk) 11:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You can either {{Withdraw}} one of your nominations (you place that template at the nomination and sign with the four tildes) or wait for the voting period on one of them to expire before you can nominate a new photo. --cart-Talk 12:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hey thanks for the warning, i just put {{Withdraw}} on 'Wester_reef_heron_kottayam_kerala.jpg' shall i remove the {{FPD}} on this one Deepugn (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it for you and this nom is now active. --cart-Talk 15:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Not enough contrast for good viewing, in my opinion. Can't be helped, but not every motif can be an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not see any reason for nomination. --Karelj (talk) 10:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is understandable when some one says a reason for opposing a nomination, but saying you could not see any reason for nomination is ridiculous and not helping at all Deepugn (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I do not see any reason for nomination: small image, little contrast, not very sharp. Charles (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On one point, wrt "small image" from Charles, the moon is 384,400 km away, which is a bit more than a bird or insect! Atmospheric issues, never mind optics, can make it hard to get a sharp image. There is no EXIF in the file, but compared to my own experiment this image was taken with a 500mm lens on a crop-sensor 24MP camera, so the focal length is equivalent to a 750mm lens on full frame. It isn't realistic to expect a longer focal length (of any quality) from consumer/enthusiast camera lenses and DSLR, so we can't expect more detailed images to be common. One would have to then get into serious astronomical telescopes to get a larger image. We have have a few larger images of the moon, though not always very detailed at 100%. It seems to be a subject where Commons is not well served. What I would like to see is (a) donations of high quality detailed moon photos by astronomers/researchers and (b) taking of more artistic photos of the moon that incorporate some other feature such as clouds, land or people. Combining the moon and stars is difficult without HDR approaches. -- Colin (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Colin's comment. There are plenty of good quality astrophotographs of the moon out there; we can wait for them to be nominated here. Daniel Case (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:FruteriaLaHabanaCuba-04751.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2017 at 22:47:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info all by me -- Ezarateesteban 22:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The difference of this picture is that it isn´t a touristic photo, show a street greengrocer showing the reality of this country, Cuba, the typical life of the citizens
Support -- Ezarateesteban 22:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Less than special composition. Charles (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neither light nor composition make this featurable. Sorry. --Code (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, not a very interesting composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 08:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Sorry Ezarateesteban 13:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kyoto Station November 2016 -03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2017 at 07:37:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Japan
Info Unlike my existing FP of Kyoto Station (which serves as "panoramic photo of the cavernous space," to quote Ikan), this nomination hopes to primarily illustrate the enormous vertical dimension - 70m! - of this great transportation hub. The exposure was 5 seconds, so moving people are blurred. I like this effect as it also underlines the hustle and bustle you find yourself confronted with when visiting this great example of Hiroshi Hara's somewhat futurist architecture. All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeWhat is the speciality of this image. I can't find anything except the upper part looks complex...--Shriheeran (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good photo of an extraondinary place. I half expect to see Luke and Vader crossing sabers on the bridge between the platforms over the restaurant area. --cart-Talk 14:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case (talk) 05:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Thennicke (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like many of your interior / U-Bahn photos, but some have possible FoP problems. In this case, all is fine. Some unsharpness at edges, though. --A.Savin 04:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Remarkable --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was prepared to oppose until I looked at it closeup and saw how big the space is. Daniel Case (talk) 05:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wowing composition --Milseburg (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)#[reply]

@Shizhao: You're required to give a reason why you oppose – Lucas ^T 15:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And this guy [5] is a administrator here people!

--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Composition messy--shizhao (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Quality is good and subject/perspective are interesting, but the bottom part is too loaded, I would have opted for a completely different crop, keeping approx. only the half top part Poc o² 19:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mezquita de Nasirolmolk, Shiraz, Irán, 2016-09-24, DD 60-62 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2017 at 09:55:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info The Nasir-ol-Molk Mosque, also known as the Pink Mosque, is a traditional mosque located in Shiraz district of Gowad-e-Arabān, Iran. The mosque was built from 1876 to 1888, by the order of Mirzā Hasan Ali (Nasir ol Molk), a Qajar ruler. Poc o² 11:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info created by User:Poco a poco - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is a great mosque that in my opinion merits more than one additional featured picture, other than the very different existing one, File:Nasir-al molk -1.jpg. I particularly like this view and composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support indeed --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it too :) Thanks Ikan for the nom. I've applied some improvements of the exposure curves Poc o² 11:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. The difference that I'm really noticing when I toggle back and forth between the two versions is that you've brightened the right side. Do you think that's a realistic depiction of what you saw, or are you taking the liberty of adding light that wasn't actually there? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan, adjusting the light is what is done all the time in HDR photography (the file name says that this is such a photo), that's the whole point of that technique. That is how most of the photos of church/mosque interiors are done. --cart-Talk 12:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for explaining that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --cart-Talk 12:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lucas ^T 16:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Excellent picture, beautiful subject. I'd support after a geocode was added. --Code (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Code: Done Poc o² 12:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 19:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nave scuola Amerigo Vespucci a Venezia museo navale.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2017 at 07:13:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water_transport
Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment beautiful but in need of minor perspective correction. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Fixed, thanks for the hint --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very regretful neutral I would so have like to support this since it is a beautiful ship with the moon at the top of the masts an all, but the light makes the scene rather flat and uninteresting. --cart-Talk 08:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Why didn't you put the moon higher above the boat? :-P Seriously, the composition may not be ideal in all aspects, but it's quite good, and there's a plus to a cloudless sky: No hindrance in moving the eye through the sky around the ship, down the group of buildings, bridge and sidewalk, across the water and past the motorboats to the far side. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's a beautiful scene but the light is simply too flat and harsh for me. Sorry. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per cart and Julian; in addition I think it would work with a tighter crop to the ship. Daniel Case (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, unbalanced composition. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Photo was made from the wrong corner, 10 meter to the right would have been much better (but I doubt if this possible) --Michielverbeek (talk) 08:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you rent a very expensive gondola ;-) --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose--shizhao (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shizhao: You're required to give a reason why you oppose, even if just "per User" when you agree with User's remarks – Lucas ^T 15:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

too many people--shizhao (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Egileta - Camino GR25 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2017 at 16:15:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Spain
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was already nominated here in December. It failed finally by one vote, one of the votes against criticised the B&W conversion. In the last weeks, I've learned a bit about B&W, so I've developped the image again from the scratch. I'd like to give it second chance as FP and hope it'll succeed this time. Do you think it's good enough now? --Basotxerri (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image. Yann (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I opposed last time, but this version really does look better. I'm sure the added contrast helps a little, but for me it's mainly the crop; it centers the viewer's eyes on the path. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support again, but I agree with KoH that the greater contrast helps. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 05:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better than before. --Mile (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 14:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the solitary tree. Charles (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very harmonious composition. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 19:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per last time. Daniel Case (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well dobe! c--Michielverbeek (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 01:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Glory of Florentine Saints on the dome in San Lorenzo (Florence).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2017 at 18:59:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like this photo a lot, and I particularly the clear and beautiful sides. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 05:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe a bit strong colors, but good anyway. --Mile (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition and art work --The Photographer 16:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 19:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per The Photographer. Daniel Case (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 01:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lifting hook with a safety latch hanging from a bridge crane.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2017 at 14:12:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Tools
Info The workshop where I saw this was very dark, with the faint winter light comming through small windows at one end of the hall. This made all the tools look rather sinister. At first I thought about keeping the photo "Batcave dark", but I don't think FPC is ready for that kind of artistry yet. ;) So, I settled for only a mildly sinister look. All by me, -- cart-Talk 14:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 14:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not at all good and wow for me. But good try. The image is very dull and and position is not at all good. --Shriheeran (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Au contraire, this photo is certainly good! I think some people will find it great, too. I appreciate it for what it is, but it doesn't greatly inspire me. It's a very high-quality photo of a lifting hook, and for me, a QI and (if nominated) a VI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very delicate lightning and texture. I like this rough looking, sinister and worn lifting hook. It has wow for me. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition I like the diagonal lines in the background, which helps frame the subject. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That door was really a very lucky coincidence. :) I think it looks slightly art deco. cart-Talk 21:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like it. Per Slaunger. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems too dark though; can it be brightened a little? -- Thennicke (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any photo can be brightened but then you'd loose the contrast that gives this its special look and end up with yet another catalogue photo. This is a very bright version of how the whole thing looked IRL and what attracted me to it. --cart-Talk 09:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks much better now IMO. If we were showing things as they look IRL this would probably be close to black, but that's not a particularly effective strategy in this medium :) -- Thennicke (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree, there is a time and place for everything and that's why I adjusted it. (But it is fun to push the boundaries once in a while. ^^) --cart-Talk 11:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support If you would put some more chain inside would feel better. --Mile (talk) 06:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposers --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dark and boring. Has not been submitted as QIC. Charles (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a requirement for FPC. Daniel Case (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but it should be encouraged to filter out some of the worst candidates (see this page!). This one is absolutely fine for QI. There are naturally some images that are excellent FPC but wouldn't pass the purely technically-oriented standards of QI. Charles (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the photo was submitted to QIC the day before it was nominated here. When you open a file and scroll down to "File usage on Commons" you can check if it is submitted to QIC or not. Also related: Most new FPC nominators have never heard of QIC (I was one of them) before getting their asses kicked here. Which is why I think we should be more tolerant toward new nominators having a first attempt here. FP is widely advertised on all Wiki projects while QI is more obscure. How on earth do you expect photographers to want to improve their abilities and come back here later, if all they get is a brutal rejection and a stern reprimand to go through a process they have no knowledge about. --cart-Talk 11:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support It really caught my eye once I saw it when scrolling down the FPC page. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the detail on the hook. Daniel Case (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The composition with the two lines in the BG pointing downward and the highlights on the hook do it for me. – Lucas ^T 08:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposers --Karelj (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support WClarke (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shizhao: You're required to give a reason why you oppose, even if just "per User" when you agree with User's remarks – Lucas ^T 15:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't understand the featurability of this one. Good quality, but not much IMHO, sorry, Poc o² 19:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 01:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Set/Canon EF 100mm f2.8L Macro IS USM DSLR lens (delist and replace), not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2017 at 22:32:19
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info I want the individual images contained in the original nomination to be delisted and replaced by the collage version File:Canon EF 100mm f2.8L Macro IS USM collage.jpg. Reason: The collage is how it should have been done the first time, and the lens sizes are matched to each other in the collage. Pinging original supporters: @INeverCry, Thennicke, Ikan Kekek, Johann Jaritz, and Frank Schulenburg: @King of Hearts, Code, Colin, Benh, and Slaunger: @Livioandronico2013, Gyrostat, Daniel Case, Reguyla, and Jacek Halicki:
Delist and replace – Lucas ^T 22:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know the correct procedure, but this image is too repetitive to be FP. Charles (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlesjsharp: There were 16 support votes from others in the original nomination without any opposers and this nomination here is just for combining them into one, so one variant will be featured at the end. If you feel it should be delisted entirely, the way to go would be to create a separate delisting nomination. – Lucas ^T 14:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just didn't know how to vote. I find it boring I'm afraid, so just ignore my comments... Charles (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Keep I find the one lens with the hood on it disrupts the aesthetic harmony that otherwise exists. Daniel Case (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: "Oppose" is not a valid option here; do you want to keep the original FP or delist without replacement? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

changed. Daniel Case (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delist and replace --Llez (talk) 08:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace Much better this way as the scale is the same for all views. Poc o² 11:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2017 at 12:34:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by Bob Wick, BLM - uploaded and nominated by -- The Photographer 12:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer 12:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't love the bokeh bird on the right side, but what strange behavior by the subject! I'd love it if someone could explain the behavior on the "content" line or link to an article that does. The bird makes itself look like a plant! I'm guessing it feels a threat. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sorry again for removing this by accident from the nomination list... --Basotxerri (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The bird in the background is a great shame, but excellent shot nevertheless. Charles (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support That is one weird bird... --cart-Talk 08:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The image of the bird is striking enough to offset the otherwise distracting blurred bird in the back and the noise. Daniel Case (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support @Ikan Kekek: These males run at each other, close to females, and shake those green sacs to make a funky noise. It's a mating ritual. The bird who's biggest and loudest gets the females. I saw a show about these birds a while back. The noise they make is a real trip. They do it by sucking air into those green sacks over and over. lNeverCry 09:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support also, not less important, the Gular skin Lotje 16:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 20:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mont Blanc from the Vosges.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2017 at 13:41:35 (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) 13:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 13:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a long way away, but the picture is not very interesting. Charles (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It’s a matter of what you are interested in. Such a far view isn’t ordinary. --Milseburg (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. --Karelj (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles, unimpressive. Daniel Case (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Probably magical IRL, not so much in a photo that can only capture a small portion of the vastness that must have surrounded you in that place. Sorry.--cart-Talk 11:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It's quite difficult capture this type of views. However, 222 km isn't enough to lower my expectations. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC) You may try it for VI.[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shizhao: You're required to give a reason why you oppose, even if just "per User" when you agree with User's remarks – Lucas ^T 15:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 01:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:A Trip Down Market Street (High Res).webm, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2017 at 12:11:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by Miles Brothers - uploaded by Victorgrigas - nominated by Tiven2240 -- Tiven2240 (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tiven2240 (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very good historic document of everyday life of a bygone era. It is also interesting to notice that a hundred year plus later, we are once again enjoying the same sort of slow paced films like the ones the Norwegians are so fond of making. --cart-Talk 12:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could be renamed and put what city, state is that. At movies i find hard to get file description. Movie is good. --Mile (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Mesmerizing and fascinating - among other things, this shows how people, vehicles and animals shared the road before there were traffic regulations, in days when motorized vehicles were slow. I can resolve the question of where this is. The trip ends at the Ferry Building in San Francisco. When they focus on the sign, we see "Erected 1898" (though it actually looks more like "1896"), but we can't see the rest of the sign because of deterioration to the movie's print. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan; at first it was just the cinéma pur aspect that fascinated me but as I kept watching what I found most striking was the glimpse of a major street in a big city of its time at a time before automobiles had established dominion over the street. The diversity of modes of transportation is amazing ... we see other cable cars, early automobiles (but still exhibiting license plates, so not too early), horse-drawn carts, horsecars, a few unyoked horses with riders, and pedestrians freely jaywalking across all this despite what is to our eyes a safety nightmare with absolutely no forerunners of modern traffic control devices visible (I like the guy near the very end who (spoiler alert) looks up just before he seems like he would otherwise have been run over by the cable car and stops, with his face betraying little if any sign that there was something unusual about this). Daniel Case (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - From what I understand, they didn't even have the concept of "jaywalking" in those days. "Jaywalking" was a term that started to get employed later by people who were trying to shift the onus on crashes into pedestrians onto the pedestrians and combat attempts to set speed limits to lower-than-dangerous speeds. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Everyone should read the documentation here. The 1906 San Francisco earthquake took place on April 18. This footage predated the earthquake! See here: w:A Trip Down Market Street. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 18:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Barack Obama's farewell speech (Tribute to his wife).webm, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2017 at 10:04:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Barack Obama moved to tears as he pays tribute to his wife Michelle during farewell speech.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by Political USA - uploaded by Tiven2240 - nominated by Tiven2240 -- Tiven2240 (talk) 10:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's fantastic -- Tiven2240 (talk) 10:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the YouTube source page: "Video Courtesy Of Independent, Thumbnail Credit To CNN". So why wouldn't this be subject to a restrictive copyright? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: I've updated the license again do have a look. It's a video found on public domain. U can see the license of a similar video [6] but I have taken the video from youtube so I have given attribution to the youtube channel. do correct me if am wrong --Tiven2240 (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm unconvinced so far. The other clip you reference is from Whitehouse.gov. This one doesn't seem to be if thumbnail credit is to be given to CNN. I see the Creative Commons license, but I'd like to be surer that the footage is from WhiteHouse.gov and not a private organization like CNN. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThere is current discussion of the same at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Barack Obama's farewell speech (Tribute to his wife).webm --Tiven2240 (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Constantin Hansen, Et selskab af danske kunstnere i Rom, 1837, KMS3236, SMK.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2017 at 16:31:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media#Portrait
Info created by SMK-foto/Jakob Skou-Hansen - uploaded by A.S. Hillersborg - nominated by Villy Fink Isaksen -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 19:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 13:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment but this wonderful work does not deserve a little more attention? Martin,Petar,Ikan,Basotxerri,Yann,Lmbuga,Christian,Johann,George,Famberhorst can you take a second look? Thank you for your time--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I usually don't vote on photos of paintings I don't know by artists I don't know, because I don't know what they really look like in person, and I do know from experience that reproduction of paintings is a very difficult thing to get right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok,Thanx you for your time --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Ikan Kekek and I am sorry. I am not a regular contributor on this page. I'm not going to contribute (It's no longer necessary). Sorry: The work on Wikimedia is no longer a priority for me. Thanks--Lmbuga (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thankful for your company--Lmbuga (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oi Lmbuga, o cara ika kekek não falo nada ruim, ele somente respondeu um mensagem de Livioandronico. Acho que foi uma confusão. Seu trabalho e realmente ótimo. Acho que muitas vezes a gente escribe coisas e podem surfrir facilmente uma mal interpretação. Estão a sua disposição. Fica na paz --The Photographer 23:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

¡Igualmente! --Basotxerri (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp photo, interesting painting --Michielverbeek (talk) 08:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This has grown on me. :) --cart-Talk 10:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 13:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 00:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gyps Fulvus in flight.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2017 at 17:14:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes
Info created by Artemy Voikhansky - uploaded by Artemy Voikhansky - nominated by Lmbuga -- Lmbuga (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lmbuga (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp! --Basotxerri (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 19:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 19:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support And 7...--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Impressive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support outstanding --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To the author: Please, tell us where the image was taken. The bird bears a ring, any information on that? Is it a 'captive' bird? --Cayambe (talk) 06:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The photo was taken at Carmel mount in Israel. There is a nature reserve on that mount, where they DO keep some captive vultures in cages (many Griffon vultures, some Egyptian vultures and to the best of my knowledge a pair of Lappet-faced vultures). Vultures in cages are used as a breeding kernel: as soon as these captive birds bring a new chick, the chick is taken away from them, treated and raised in a way it doesn't get imprinted to humans and is released to the wild. So this way they create a wild population of birds. However, vultures that are raised this way get a wing tag as well - so people from the ground could see who's flying and keep their records. So I assume that this specific one (without wing tags) is of European origin: it flew here for the winter and joined the local flock. PS. local Israeli vultures look this way: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AGriffon_vulture_at_Gamla_nature_reserve.jpg Artemy Voikhansky (talk) 08:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation Artemy Voikhansky. I have copied it to the file's page. This is the kind of info that those who want to use the photo will be looking for, so it should be on that page instead of here where the text will be sort of hidden from sight in a couple of weeks. If you have similar background info for you other photos, please add it, it will enhance the value of your fine photos. A geotag would also be much appreciated. --cart-Talk 13:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 11:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 13:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 06:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 00:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Palestinian Umm Al-Fahm2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2017 at 15:16:19 (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 Moataz1997 - nominated by ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a very nice view but it needs perspective corretion, CA removal and it is way too heavy on the black nuances. --cart-Talk 19:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very cluttered and probably not the right viewpoint for a cityscape shot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perspective issues as noted by cart; also very noisy. Frankly, it looks like it was taken with a DP/S, which would explain a lot of its technical issues. Daniel Case (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, not an interesting composition. I would have turned the camera bit clockwise for getting less space in the air and see more houses. I have also seen too much noise in the sky for a FP --Michielverbeek (talk) 08:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 09:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 00:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iturrieta - Fagus sylvatica 03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2017 at 17:24:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Spain
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose White halo around the tree and some weird small pixel-wide slits cut into the tree at some places. I've never seen this before. – Lucas ^T 17:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lucas. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Lucas. Great scene, but shows signs of editing too obviously. Daniel Case (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thank you all, I'll check the image. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 08:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:UN-Sicherheitsrat - UN Security Council - New York City - 2014 01 06.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2017 at 13:03:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created by Neptuul - uploaded by Neptuul - nominated by Shizhao -- shizhao (talk) 13:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- shizhao (talk) 13:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. --cart-Talk 13:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shizhao, you may not have seen this message the last time since Mile was so quick to take over your nomination. Please remember in the future that you can only have two open nominations at the same time. You are welcome to renominate this photo as soon as one of your other nominations is closed. I would also advise that you read the text on the COM:FPC carefully. --cart-Talk 13:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 08:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rocks in Keri island.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2017 at 23:08:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Rocks and Minerals
Info all by Kruusamägi (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harmonious and nice but I find the quality a bit lacking. I would like to be able to see what the white stuff (stone surface, guano, dried sea moss, snow, chemical accident?) on the rocks actually is, it is not distinct enough now. --cart-Talk 09:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak support very peaceful but technically not perfect --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not very sharp, and the composition doesn't really work for me. Meritorious and artistic but not an FP for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan and cart; looks overprocessed. Daniel Case (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 09:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Kruusamägi (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 08:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:San Carlo ai Catinari ,Dome.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2017 at 19:49:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
I withdraw my nomination All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 21:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't think looking at the ceiling through mesh is the most interesting motif. Not your fault, but I think it affects the quality of the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry, but Ikan's right --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan Kekek. Too bad the mesh is blocking an otherwise quite nice ceiling. dllu (t,c) 11:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others, it won't (ahem) mesh well with our other FPs of ceilings and dome interiors. Daniel Case (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 08:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Miltiades (Roman replica).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2017 at 06:39:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
Info Miltiades (Roman replica). My shot. -- Mile (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The head is too noise and unsharp, not FP IMHO sorry Ezarateesteban 14:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 14:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think I would also expect better sharpness and DoF (F2.5?) for this type of picture. Charles (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy. Daniel Case (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shizhao: you need to state a reason why you oppose – Lucas ^T 15:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And this guy [7] is a administrator here people!

--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think, you find the reason here --Llez (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Mile (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:16-11-30 Cimitero Monumentale Milano RR2 7518-7522.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2017 at 21:31:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Cimitero Monumentale di Milano, Italy - all by -- Ralf Roleček 21:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ralf Roleček 21:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much blank foreground, and the light isn't optimal. lNeverCry 21:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per INC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

shizhao, why do you oppose? You must state a reason, even if it's in agreement with someone else (as in my "per INC", which means "I agree with INeverCry's remarks"). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think, you find the reason here --Llez (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

?? The Architect of the Cimitero is died 1899? --Ralf Roleček 22:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That link is just to Shizhao's user talk; I don't see the reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see there DR because of FoP. --Ralf Roleček 22:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Llez: What's your point? Those delete requests on Shizhao's talk page are just because the Panoramio upload bot, which Shizhao created to import free images from Panoramio, had a bug and accidentally imported a bunch of images from a place without freedom of panorama, and some low-quality images. It was an approved bot trying to archive pictures from Panoramio before the service shut down in November 2016. There's no evidence that Shizhao is acting in bad faith. I believe he/she is contributing in good faith. Also, Shizhao's main language is Chinese; he/she does not speak English well, so please be patient. dllu (t,c) 02:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too much blank foreground--shizhao (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per INC. Daniel Case (talk) 06:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 08:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:American crocodile in calm water.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2017 at 05:37:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - So far, you have all the FP photos of Crocodylus acutus. I put the name of the species in parentheses and fixed your categories (the two you had were both parent categories of Category:Crocodylus acutus). But all that nitpicking aside, I find this picture compelling and like your composition very much. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely menacing. --cart-Talk 10:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Definitely not - with the interesting bits under water. Charles (talk) 11:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 05:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works for me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles. lNeverCry 06:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles. --Karelj (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barranco de Balos - Gran Canaria.jpg, featured , featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2017 at 14:52:06 (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) 14:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice view with the clouds crowning the summit, but I find the light in the left part of the pic too flat and the mountain plus landscape to the right is much more interesting that the main motif, drawing attention away from it. --cart-Talk 10:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Since the tilt was corrected, I find motif and presentation very interessting and impressive. --Milseburg (talk) 11:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to vote on this picture. Pro: It's an impressive and sharp high-resolution document at full size. Con: The composition doesn't really work for me at full-page size, due to the combination of the lack of what I'd consider sufficient sky and the relatively featureless middleground (especially when compared to the foreground). I guess I ultimately tilt Oppose, as I just don't find the landforms and vegetation quite fascinating enough to merit a feature in this context. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Always a sucker for a reasonably well-done landscape. Daniel Case (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 19:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shizhao: you need to state a reason why you oppose – Lucas ^T 15:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And this guy [8] is a administrator here people!

--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think, you find the reason here --Llez (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can, but no-one should be expected to trawl through that user talk page to find some hint. Shizhao has to state a reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Poc o² 17:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Curious Little Bird Looking at a Camera.webm, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2017 at 13:40:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info created by jlaswilson - uploaded by Tiven2240 - nominated by Tiven2240 -- Tiven2240 (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tiven2240 (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support At least its funny and interesting. --Mile (talk) 08:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 11:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Funny, but overexposed. Yann (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm with Yann on the overexposed and the photo is only interesting because the bird is hopping about on a camera, picking at its own reflection, instead of on a branch. Had the bird actually managed to take a photo, it would have been another matter. --cart-Talk 08:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 06:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poc o² 17:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Водно, крст, зима, 2012.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2017 at 13:19:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
Info created by Darkocv - uploaded by Darkocv - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question Are the CAs fixable? --Llez (talk) 08:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Crop too close at the top. Fixable? --cart-Talk 09:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support assuming issues noted above are fixed during this !vote. Daniel Case (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Where are the chromatic aberrations? I'm not so good at seeing those, sometimes. I think this is a really good composition, so I would be inclined to vote for the photo, even though cart is right that more room above the top of the cross would be optimal. However, at least the one smallish dust spot I saw should be removed. It's right near the right margin, just a bit above a horizontal line from the point of the cross. I didn't see others, but if you find others, remove those, too. And if you see the CA, fix them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for your comments. I will remove the dust spot and fix the crop on the top. As for the chromatic aberration, perhaps Llez meant on its slight appearance around the tree branches.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done I have fixed the issues noted above.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hate to tell you, but I'm seeing more problems: There's a small dust spot a bit to the left of the other point of the cross, but more importantly, I'm seeing posterization lines in the sky. Can those be dealt with? I really want to support this photo, but I don't think it's in good enough condition yet. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose--shizhao (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shizhao: you need to state a reason why you oppose – Lucas ^T 15:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

too many people--shizhao (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I support the image to be featured but it needs some corrections I hope it been addressed before the voting ends --Tiven2240 (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poc o² 17:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Church of San Juan el Real in Calatayud, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2017 at 10:34:23 (UTC)

View of the nave forwards.
View of the nave backwards.
Detail view of the main reredos and the altar.
Ceiling of the nave.
Crossing with the famous paintings of Francisco de Goya in the pendentives.

Info Set of HDR images of the church of San Juan el Real in the center of Calatayud, province of Zaragoza, Spain. The baroque church was built in the 17th and 18th century and hosts among others some of the first paintings still conserved by Francisco de Goya in the pendentives of the main dome. Poc o² 10:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 10:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 10:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question Poco a poco: Are you sure the white balance/tint is correct? It looks overall too warm. It is tricky to get right when you have both artifial light sources and daylight. Proposal: Use some gradient linear or radial color temperature filters in LR to get a more even color tempearature. -- Slaunger (talk) 13:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Slaunger: it looks pretty loyal to reality to me. It was very early, so that the sun light did not play a big role here as it didn't get into the building. The tones are therefore due to the artificial lighting. In the evening it would also look similar to this. A quick search in Google also confirms it. Poc o² 13:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Colors are problem, i cant see mentiong HDR in files, nor exposure for them. I saw Google and i more like unHDR shots, still more reliable. I dont feel HDR is always best solution. --Mile (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"HDR" is in each of the files' name if you look. --cart-Talk 18:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this conversation to be honest. If I replace these HDR shots with the long exposure frames then you'd complain about burnt lights. There is no other way that I know of to capture the typically long dynamic range within a church without using HDR, do you? Poc o² 19:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mile: I agree with Poco a poco on that. HDR is the way to go to properly capture the large dynamic range of light in these settings. Doing good HDR processing is challenging though, and it can easily turn out with an artificial look. However, if you do it properly and do not "turn the knobs" too much it can give you a very faithful reepresentation close to what you sense with the logarithmic response in your eyes. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That said, the EXIF metadata are misleading as you get the impression it is a single exposure shot, and I would recommend, as I have done previously, to add {{Photo Information}} templates on the file pages, as it allows to specifiy several exposure times and state how the image has been created, see here for an example. In that example there were (also) light sources with greatly varying color temperatures, and I used gradient color temperature filters in Lightroom to make it look more realistic (white should be aproximately white everywhere in the picture). -- Slaunger (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slaunger: I've added the {{Photo Information}} template to all images. I compared again all picture and came to the conclusion that the last one was a bit off in comparison to the others and "cooled" it a bit. Poc o² 11:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Poco a poco. I will abstain from voting as the colors just do not look too good to me, and I am dissapointed at seeing the Goya paintings, but as I have not been there and do not know what it really looks like, it could also be me, who is wrong. The last picture looks more "right" to me now. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slaunger: as said that frame was actually a bit off the others, both perception and temperature point of view. Do you expect that all images have exactly the same temperature? Poc o² 19:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poco a poco: No, I just think some of the images have a too yellow tint, especially no. 1 and 4. For instance. I find it odd that the entire organ and the organ pipes have such a yellow color cast. I know that is the surroundings are yellow you will also get yellow reflections in the pipes, but still.... it just does not look right to me. But to re-iterate, I have not been there, so I do not know how it should look like. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think this is a great series of shots of a beautiful church, and nominating the photos as a set was the way to go. One request: Please be specific in the "Description" lines for each file in describing what part of the church we are seeing, just as you do in this set nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Excellent quality and an interesting subject. A pity that there's this person visible in the lower left corner of the first picture (and these panels with the pieces of paper look a little bit messy, too, which of course isn't your fault). I think the white balance is correct. However, before supporting I'd suggest you add a geocode to each description page. It would also be nice if you could add some information about your HDR processing as already suggested above. --Code (talk) 06:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Code: I've cloned out the head of the lady in the bottom left corner of the first frame. I've also added geodata to all images in the set (and also to the category) along with the shutter speed of each HDR image. Poc o² 11:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thank you. --Code (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support On thumb size theses pictures look amazing, however, I must confess that the result was not as expected corners out of focus or deformed, color temperature look a bit overprocessed to me and people in the images. The same with the overdone noise reduction and oversharpening. I understand that my criticism is somewhat strong, however, my comparison is exclusively with other images of the same FP cat. Except for everything said, in my opinion, these images continue at the FP level --The Photographer 16:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Photographer: No problem with strong criticism, as long as it is fair. Can you please be more concrete and add a few notes (e.g. sharpening halos or overprocessing)? That corners are not as sharp as other areas is normal. Btw, I didn't apply any denoising and just standard sharpening and uploaded the files in full resolution after perspective correction. Poc o² 19:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done A day ago I added a notes about the problem. Please, let me know if it's ok for you. Thanks --The Photographer 12:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 19:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poc o² 17:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Blériot XI Thulin A Mikael Carlson OTT 2013 10 silhouette.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2017 at 13:11:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
Info created by Julian Herzog - uploaded by Julian Herzog - nominated by Shizhao -- shizhao (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- shizhao (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has "wow". --smial 16:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 17:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could the tone be adjusted to make the sky less dull, or is the sepia-type colouring intentional? Charles (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I am quite sure the slight underexposure and the reddish WB (evening hour) are intended. Both supports the special atmosphere of that photo. --smial 10:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support In the end it is a photo that makes me dream, that is FP. --cart-Talk 10:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the fanciful quality, per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 09:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas ^T 22:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gulf of Tallinn.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2017 at 13:20:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created by Abrget47j - uploaded by Abrget47j - nominated by Shizhao -- shizhao (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- shizhao (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This image is very, very special and I really like it. However, the composition should be better: the rocks are too close to the border, I would like to see a bit of water in front of it. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A pity that the bottom crop is much too tight to be featurable. --Code (talk) 06:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Minimal oppose per above. I love the mood, though! Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 09:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– Lucas ^T 22:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lezyne Carbon 10 collage.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2017 at 15:12:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Tools
Info All by me. – Lucas ^T 15:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lucas ^T 15:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ The meticulously stacked photograph of that weird looking tool has an outstanding image quality - but I really can't come to terms with this kind of totally artificial background. Yes, it's much cleaner, smoother, and thus far more perfect than any real sheet of black paper/carton/cloth could ever be. But it also lacks character, sorry. This could easily be fixed, however... ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Martin Falbisoner: Please be aware—if you aren't already—that my solid color backgrounds can be achieved in the studio rather easily and without any reflections or shadows (I can explain how). Just to clarify that what I do here doesn't need to be made in editing. Also there are a lot of existing FPs with such backgrounds, not from me. The shells by Llez, coins, sculptures, computers, a whole engine, watches, musical instruments, jewelry, stones, crystals and some more. The background of many of those is equally character-less than this one. Obviously I like these backgrounds as they allow maximum attention to the main subject. I chose dark grey here because the object has black and white areas that need to stand out. If you would require shadows to "fix" the image, I couldn't add them, because the way I shot this I don't have shadows or reflections:

– Lucas ^T 16:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation. I'd still prefer a more "vivid" background, e.g. like this one, but I'll change my vote to weak support as I really appreciate the outstanding quality of your stacking technique. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good shot of bike tools. I could support, but you should make compo diagonal. I would put bottom tool a little bit to the left, and add some background all around (some 100 px) except to the left. I think shadow isnt important here, gray back work. --Mile (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PetarM: I don't really want to break the alignment of them which is why they are placed the way they are, but I tightened the crop a bit to place these two closer to the diagonal. Do you have strong arguments against the current composition? – Lucas ^T 17:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fine with me, but still think some 30–50 px border could make it less tight. --Mile (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done – Lucas ^T 17:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Crop is a little tight at the bottom, but really superb quality. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Your photos of hardware and mine are at the opposite ends of a spectrum. Yours are precise, tight and almost clinical while mine are all about mood, space and light. We need both. I would say these exact representations are sort of the 3D equivalent of all the photographs of "Static non-photographic media". Photos of those need to be exact and depict the artwork in a objective manner. With all the new possibilities that focus stacking and better cameras bring, we are seeing more and more of these outstanding photos. It would be unproductive to say no to all of these contributions just because it is hard to make them artistically pleasing and we don't know where to put them. I think it is time for a new sub-section of FP:COM, something like "Commons:Featured pictures/Technical". I would be very happy to review photos of things the same way I review a photo of a painting to see if it is perfectly true to the original artwork. --cart-Talk 10:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: Thanks for your thoughts. I was thinking about bringing your suggestion to the FPC talk page, but then I went through the FP categories again and these solid color BG product shots just don't look out of place to me, they just belong next to the "more natural background" shots. What I think is happening as well is that my subjects aren't very rare or special (the old discussion about criticising the subject together with the photographic qualities) so some people don't feel much when looking at these familiar objects regardless of the quality—in comparison to a vintage camera which might evoke memories or some other cool or unusual thing. And my lighting can never have a wow factor because it is there to light the subject evenly, accentuate features, but never more than that. I don't have a good solution, maybe new FP categories, maybe some comments on this type of photography in the FPC guidelines, or new "RQI"–reference-quality-images ;) – Lucas ^T 14:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This idea occurred to me while I was reviewing this image and I think this needs some more comments and more discussions, so I'm going to copy our conversation from this page to the more appropriate FPC talk page where such discussions belong. Hope that's ok with you. --cart-Talk 15:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 09:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas ^T 21:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Stadtpark (Hamburg-Winterhude).Festwiese.1.22023.ajb.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2017 at 19:33:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info Stadtpark, urban park in Hamburg - all by Ajepbah -- Ajepbah (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ajepbah (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't love the composition, sorry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The colours are not really impressive, too much white in the photo. Not sharp enough for FP and composition like Akan. Sorry --Michielverbeek (talk) 08:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Michielverbeek, it looks like a composition of postcards from the 60s. Sorry. --cart-Talk 09:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Michielverbeek and cart. Looks overexposed, seems to be trying to do too much compositionally. Daniel Case (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 09:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 23:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Upsala Glacier, Argentina.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2017 at 18:22:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images
Info created by NASA - uploaded by Originalwana - nominated by Ras67 -- Ras67 (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support High educational value, it shows the melting Upsala Glacier in an impressive manner. -- Ras67 (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Valuable as documentation and beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. --cart-Talk 09:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan and everyone else !voting per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 04:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support & 7... lNeverCry 19:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas ^T 22:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:NewOrleansIsForLovers.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2017 at 02:03:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Infrogmation - uploaded by Infrogmation - nominated by WClarke -- In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans a "couple in protective gear embrace at the entrance to their mold infested flood damaged home, taking a break from seeing what can be salvaged of their possessions". WClarke (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- This photograph was taken over 11 years ago with a point-and-shoot camera, and isn't a technical masterpiece. Though its message and subject goes far beyond the majority of featured pictures, depicting an intimate scene, even with some surreal qualities, in the aftermath of a devastating disaster in New Orleans. It shows the hope that brought the City of New Orleans back after Katrina, and in general captures the spirit of the city in one photograph, showing the attitude, and even eccentricity, of its people. Thanks. WClarke (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting, but not FP composition/technical quality for me. Charles (talk) 10:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice moment, however, image quality (lights and shadows) and composition (umbalanced and centered) are not in the FP standard to me. IMHO it look like a personal family album --The Photographer 13:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per The Photographer Poc o² 08:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 09:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 10:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prague 07-2016 View from Petrinska Tower img2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2017 at 00:18:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info created by User:A.Savin - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - In addition to being a beautiful, colorful scene, I really like this composition. It's a pity the one green tower got cut off, but something had to be cropped. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nomination )) --A.Savin 00:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 08:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the crop isn´t working for me. --Milseburg (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's certainly a reasonable objection. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Karelj (talk) 11:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support While the composition is somewhat busy and lacks any clear form or lines, I really like the colors of the rood, the clarity and the people on the bridge giving us a feel for Prague as a busy tourist attraction. Daniel Case (talk) 05:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - By moving my eyes around the picture frame the way I do with a painting, I find that it does have a form. But perhaps we define "form" differently. I'm glad you like the photo, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 13:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support das beste Bild der Karlsbrücke, was wir haben. Ich habe erst kürzlich ein gutes Übersichtsbild der Brücke für den Artikel auf .de gesucht und nur einen Kompromiß gefunden [9] - kaum zu glauben, daß diese so oft fotografierte Objekt nur mittelprächtige Bilder hat. --Ralf Roleček 21:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

shizhao, why do you oppose? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And this guy [10] is a administrator here people!

--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The people on the bridge made the photos look messy--shizhao (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are always people on the bridge. You're effectively saying it's impossible to take a featurable photo of that bridge. Do you really think so? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Peer shizhao, people in the bridge is a value added. --The Photographer 13:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 10:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DFB HG 3-4 Gletsch.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2017 at 10:44:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles#Land vehicles
Info Rack-and-adhesion locomotive HG 3/4 nr. 4 of the Dampfbahn Furka-Bergstrecke arriving at Gletsch.
Info created and uploaded by Kabelleger - nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 10:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 10:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Extremely picturesque, good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good! Although this is very nice colourful photo, a B&W version would have a total antique touch as there isn't almost any modern thing to see. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you got it the wrong way around, This is actually an excellent restoration of this old photo: . I think Kabelleger did an astonishing job. --cart-Talk 21:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The joke is, the color version is a 2011 photograph and had been digitally aged by W.carter. – Lucas ^T 23:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is awesome, thanks, cart. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --cart-Talk 21:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would be better if the train were slightly closer, but great photo nonetheless. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful scenery and very well captured. Looks almost like a painting to me. --Code (talk) 06:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although it would be nice to have a geocode. Cart and Basotxerri are right ... there is just something timeless about this one. Daniel Case (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 19:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shizhao: you need to state a reason why you oppose – Lucas ^T 15:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And this guy [11] is a administrator here people!

--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think, you find the reason here --Llez (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The character broke the composition--shizhao (talk) 12:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent focus to main parts of the photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 08:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 19:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Anchusa azurea, Sainte-Lucie Island, Aude 02.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2017 at 16:42:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info All by me. -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, no wow for me and the out-of-focus background is not blurred enough so some parts of it are crossing over the main subject and distract too much. – Lucas ^T 18:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just not exceptional enough for FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination ok Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Harbour of Sète, March 2016 cf01.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2017 at 14:18:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info All by me. -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not the sharper of my images, but a very special mood IMO. -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I really like this composition and the mood but as you say, I wish the ship in the front would be sharper. --Basotxerri (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too near of me, the rest of the image would have been out of focus. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I can see why this painterly symphony of grays attracted you, and you got that part of it right. But there are just so many elements in the picture that compete for my attention that it can only be a QI for me. Daniel Case (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination ok Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo. Uitzicht op Monte Cevedale 05.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2017 at 06:28:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy
Info Mountain hiking of parking in power station Malga Mare to Lago Lungo 2553m. Views of Monte Cevedale (3769 m).Beautiful view on the partially covered with clouds Monte Cevedale (3769 m). All by User:Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like this a lot. Beautiful composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! --Basotxerri (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice!!! --Rjcastillo (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 01:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A little noisy in the foreground, but still captures an Alpine landscape beautifully. Daniel Case (talk) 07:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 07:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition, grass on rocks + clouds + snow on rocks. Great! --Michielverbeek (talk) 08:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 19:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Malachite kingfisher (Corythornis cristatus galerita).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2017 at 20:47:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info The most colourful of all the kingfishers. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just another bird. It isn´t really wowing me. --Milseburg (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot, Charles! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Frank and nom. The bird is beautiful and has a good expression, it's superbly shot, and the composition is very harmonious. To me, this is close to as good as it gets. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good close-up but quality is far from FP.--Mile (talk) 06:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak support a bit oversharpened --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Mile --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mile--Lmbuga (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mile. Daniel Case (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shizhao: you need to state a reason why you oppose – Lucas ^T 15:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And this guy [12] is a administrator here people!

--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think, you find the reason here --Llez (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 09:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 23:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Laguna de Salinas, Arequipa, Perú, 2015-08-02, DD 29-38 PAN.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2017 at 17:50:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Vicuñas (Vicugna vicugna) grazing at the Lake Salinas, a salt pan located in the Arequipa Region, Perú. The lake belongs to the Salinas and Aguada Blanca National Reservation, it's 4,300 metres (14,100 ft) over the sea level and its size is 6,182 hectares (15,280 acres) but shrinks to a thin salt crust in the dry season. All by me, Poc o² 17:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 17:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good compo, but also partly blurred (note added). --Ivar (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Motif and image size are very impressive and out of my reach. Offered in the standard image hight of my panos I wouldn´t have anything to beef. But there´s a obvious loss of sharpness visible at one stitching. See note. I´m afraid, not every frame ist really sharp. --Milseburg (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, agree, something is not right here, sorry, I take it back. I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 22:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 09:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:NASA rocket to display artificial clouds in space (32653767132).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2017 at 14:57:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Space exploration
Info created by NASA - uploaded by Well-Informed Optimist - nominated by Well-Informed Optimist -- Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is small and not very sharp. More importantly, it is not clear what this shows. The explanation talks about a rocket to be launched in 2017, but the image is from 2012. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:28, 13 February 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: small resolution and no precision in description, 2017 or 2012?

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.

(unsigned FPX by Ezarate – Lucas ^T 21:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

I withdraw my nomination. The description has been corrected. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 09:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Myocastor coypus 2016 G1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2017 at 08:33:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created and uploaded by George Chernilevsky - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I admit to having a soft spot for rodents because I had pet guinea pigs as a child, but I think this is a good composition as well as a cute baby nutria. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what's wrong with my categories. Please fix or suggest how I should fix this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As far as I can see, there's no relevant subcategory below Mammals, so I've removed the rest. --Basotxerri (talk) 09:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's kind of insane. Thanks for taking care of the problem. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not wild about the shadow top right. Charles (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many thanks, Ikan Kekek -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I enjoyed other photos in this series, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles. lNeverCry 00:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me. Daniel Case (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cute little critter but there is too much white in the vegetation, making it look bland, and then there is that unfortunate shadow top right that gives this photo a bit of snapshot quality. Sorry. --cart-Talk 11:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment George Chernilevsky, would you like to try to address the critics' points with some editing (alter white balance, perhaps brighten the shadow, if that isn't too dishonest a thing to do), or should I withdraw? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan, I did a quick fix of this photo to see if it could be improved. Lightening the shadow up right, I see that it is not a dark patch of plants but something furry, most likely part of another nutria. Sorry. --cart-Talk 16:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan, I prefer withdraw now. W.carter is right about another nutria. Anyway, thank You for nomination. And thanks to all for reviews. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I withdraw my nomination. But I hope we do eventually get an FP nutria picture from you because those baby nutrias are so cute! :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 09:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:Farmhouse and barn in Abbotsford, BC.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2017 at 02:08:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places
Info created by dllu - uploaded by dllu - nominated by Dllu -- dllu (t,c) 02:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- dllu (t,c) 02:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think this is beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It is a very beautiful and appealing photo, bits of the clouds are blown though. --cart-Talk 09:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was a sunny day, so why take the image when the subject is in the shade? Charles (talk) 10:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Need a WB and color temperature adjustment --The Photographer 13:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you think it's too cool or too warm? I used spot metering on a neutral grey looking part of the barn. Thanks, dllu (t,c) 20:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It look too cool, in the histogram is observed as part of the blue becomes violet and this issue is also noticeable in the image as the left part is considerably more violet blue.Do You have had some discoloration when you lowered the exposure?. --The Photographer 10:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Some details are lost in the clouds Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have another version of this picture with -2EV exposure. I'll upload another version with the correctly exposed clouds when I have the time. dllu (t,c) 20:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose While the exposure compensation could help a little, to me the real issue is the clouds being lit with the buildings in shadow. That for me never turns out well. Daniel Case (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel. lNeverCry 09:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Admittedly, this isn't one of my best works -- it was taken over 6 years ago with inferior equipment and skills. It was just a random snapshot during a walk that was not planned in advance. The -2 EV is not aligned with the other version (no tripod was used) and there was some wind so attempting to register the two images results in blurry foilage. Also, the low quality polarizing filter used seems to have caused some discoloration. I only uploaded this because of the barn photo challenge and I only nominated it because Ikan Kekek nominated it for QIC. dllu (t,c) 08:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 09:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Palacio Real, Ámsterdam, Países Bajos, 2016-05-30, DD 07-09 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2017 at 22:45:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Blue hour view of front of the Royal Palace, Amstedam, Netherlands. The palace was built as a city hall during the Dutch Golden Age and opened in 1655. The building became the royal palace of King Louis Napoleon and later of the Dutch Royal House. Currently it is one of the 3 palaces at the disposal of the monarch. All by me, Poc o² 22:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 22:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Colors, CA, especially check edges. And its not so sharp i would expect. --Mile (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unnatural colors. -- -donald- (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much better now.

Support -- -donald- (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know that this color is the result of the lights on the façade, but when it occupies such a large portion of the pic, it becomes a bit too much. I did a test and used one of the borders of the posters in the arches (ground floor) for WB and the result was much more harmonious and restful for the eyes. It also brought out the details better. Please try it and see what you think. --cart-Talk 08:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It looks like the whole palace is gilt. The streetlights on the far left might need some manual intervention, as your HDR software has made a mess there. It does look a bit like you didn't take enough exposures to handle the highlights. -- Colin (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -donald-, Colin, Mile, Johann, cart: I've uploaded a new version with new HDR processing, different WB, wider crop in both sides, removed dust spot and additional sharpening Poc o² 18:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks better now, thanks. --cart-Talk 19:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 21:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Just no. The sad truth is the lighting of this building is anything but inspired, so probably a daytime picture would work much better. If it has to be a night pic then I chose the orange colored one, as that's how Na lamps, and things lit by them, actually look like in reality. The crop was a definite improvement but in all regards it falls flat compared to the previous one (on which I was more or less neutral). KennyOMG (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:16-08-28-Schloß Rundāle-RR2 2578.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2017 at 21:36:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Rundāle Palace, Latvia - all by -- Ralf Roleček 21:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ralf Roleček 21:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of voting right away, I'd ask you to please tell us why you consider this a featurable photo. What is special and remarkable about it to you? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice tones. FP to me. -- Thennicke (talk) 08:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 13:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good shot, but there is CA on both lusters. --Mile (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a nice room with some very beautiful colors and I would rather have seen those with all the painted walls and nice floor than just the reflections of the chandeliers everywhere. It is also a bit too grainy for my taste. --cart-Talk 19:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak support per cart --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose more or less per cart. I'm surprised some people find this featurable. The overwhelming view is of a white glare that doesn't succeed in bringing out the colors of the walls or ceiling effectively. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting. Charles (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In addition to the lighting comments, there is some odd postprocessing that causes a dark purple shadow around the bright chandelier, as though one tried too hard to recover the highlights. It's a nice room though. dllu (t,c) 02:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per cart and Ikan. Frankly, looking at it makes my eyes water. Also, it's noisy. Daniel Case (talk) 06:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 09:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 06:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yellow-billed oxpeckers (Buphagus africanus africanus) on zebra.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2017 at 19:57:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info Oxpeckers, as their name suggests, live off ticks and other insects that are attracted to large mammals. It isn't a completely loving relationship however, as the birds do keep wounds open and eat the flesh and blood of their hosts. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice! --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent. It looks like they're perched on a zebra. Should the category for zebras be added? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Ikan, the clue is in the file name!! :) Charles (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, talk about ignoring the obvious! But should the zebra's category be added? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support lNeverCry 01:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice and good --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Head of rear bird is a little unsharp but so what when the pose is so great. What I want to know, though, is what did the one bird do to piss the other one off so much? Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean ticked off! Charles (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A US-UK English difference, no doubt. Daniel Case (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is the colour of the zebra really pink-black? --Llez (talk) 06:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was the morning light. I have corrected it as white-black looks better. Thanks. Charles (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great capture now that the pink zebra has been corrected. Are pink zebras some sort of version of pink elephants? ;) --cart-Talk 11:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, pink is very important for Senegalese wildlife. I didn't mention it, but some experts believe that these birds are searching the skies for flying pigs. Charles (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support After correction and the very intresting discussion --Llez (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot! $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 20:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 06:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Österreichischer Filmpreis 2017 photo call Krista Stadler 1.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2017 at 18:53:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created and uploaded by Tsui - nominated by W.carter -- cart-Talk 18:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Actress Krista Stadler at the Austrian Film Awards 2017. A good, well lit portrait full of character. -- cart-Talk 18:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Weird pose with her hands and she's not looking at the photographer. – Lucas ^T 20:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the photographer is not a requirement for a portrait. See COM:FP#Portraits. --cart-Talk 20:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It still looks weird to me, as if she is looking to a competing photographer – Lucas ^T 21:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Lucas. Not much contrast between her and the background either with that black dress. The words in the bokeh bug me too. lNeverCry 09:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice pose, very good quality. Yann (talk) 11:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support That off-center look makes it different. Daniel Case (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Contrast between shadowed (right part of her face) and lightened (left part of her face) part is too large --Michielverbeek (talk) 08:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I think it's time to close this one. Thank you for your time and comments. --cart-Talk 13:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Backlit ficus elastica leaf texture 2014 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2017 at 13:32:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created by Julian Herzog - uploaded by Julian Herzog - ~~nominated by Shizhao~~ -- shizhao (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC) renomination by --Mile (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- shizhao (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ex {{FPD}} ...i will retake nomination. --Mile (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Everyone needs to look at this at full size. It's remarkable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support truly remarkable --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressing. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 19:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At full size, this seems soft. There is no definition to the leaf. And it seems that the black background has been added. Charles (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The black background is real in this case. I would agree though that the image could be sharper. — Julian H.^✈ 07:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I remember this from the "Surface textures" photo challenge. It got 2nd place, despite not actually being a photograph of surface texture: being backlit it is more akin to an x-ray than a photograph of surface texture detail, which would require side lighting. -- Colin (talk) 08:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Taking into account Charles's criticisms, I nevertheless find this a pleasure to apprehend. Daniel Case (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I would have liked better resolution and having more parts of the leaf in focus, but the image looks good enough beyond the so-often-employed-100%-view that I'll let it be. – Lucas ^T 22:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 09:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 15:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice structure --PtrQs (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 22:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Templo de Garni, Armenia, 2016-10-02, DD 03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2017 at 12:35:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info The Temple of Garni (lit. "pagan temple of Garni") is a classical Hellenistic temple in Garni, Armenia. It is perhaps the best-known structure and symbol of pre-Christian Armenia and was probably built by king Tiridates I in the first century AD as a temple to the sun god Mihr. According to some scholars it was not a temple but a tomb and thus survived the universal destruction of pagan structures. It collapsed in a 1679 earthquake and reconstructed between 1969 and 1975. Poc o² 13:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great one for its EV and nice view. It was challenging to get an image without tourists as it is one of the most important touristic attractions in the country. Thank you, Kasir! Poc o² 13:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Using a 24mm lens does cause perspective issues though ~~and it is a very close crop~~. Charles (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 00:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support KennyOMG (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Still has perspective and CA problems. And how did you get that azure sky? Altitude? GND? Both? It doesn't quite look natural; you don't usually have such skies in your work. Support now. Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm ok with this perspective. Some buildings look positively grotesque if you do a "proper" perspective adjustment. I tried this one and it would make the roof look weird. There is the question of the sky though, I know the camera can play these tricks on pics sometimes (been there myself) and you need to lighten/desaturate/tone down it a bit to make things look normal. Great EV and kudos for getting rid of the tourists. --cart-Talk 11:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Full support now with the fixed sky + other things. --cart-Talk 12:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @W.carter and Daniel Case: Ok, I've reduced the saturation of the sky a bit, increased the crop a bit also on the right, got rid of some tourists in the back and removed slight CA Poc o² 12:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good --The Photographer 23:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support good now --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 22:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ishiyama-dera, November 2016.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2017 at 07:51:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Japan
Info Ishiyama-dera, literally Stony Mountain Temple, Ōtsu, Shiga Prefecture, Japan, at night. In this case I like the rather "dense" composition as it hints at all the little architectural and artistic features one can find at this site on the outskirts of Kyoto. The pagoda is not overexposed, by the way, though the illumination lets its white segments glare - which is rather impressive when seen in situ. All by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really striking; I'll take it. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 13:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

shizhao, when you oppose a feature, you need to say why. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And this guy [13] is a administrator here people!

--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want to say something I haven't seen anyone say: Welcome to Featured Picture Candidates, shizhao! Just because Shizhao is an administrator doesn't mean s/he is familiar with FPC procedures. There are many other tasks an administrator could perform ably. I think we should stand ready to help Shizhao, if asked. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As an Admin, Shizhao should respond as quickly as possible to Ikan's request "when you oppose a feature, you need to say why". If not, I assume there are steps that can be taken. Charles (talk) 11:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Charles, there is also the matter of time difference to consider if this user is based in China. Shizhao may not be able to respond quickly due to work, school or unreliable internet connection (apparently common in China). Not every Admin can be on call during the 9-5 CET workday. Please be a bit patient on international sites and don't call for "steps to be taken" within less than a 24 hours after the request was made.--cart-Talk 13:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Composition messy --shizhao (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --cart-Talk 19:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really dislike the dark structure in the foreground. No chance to use fill-in flash? Charles (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To me, the dark foreground makes the bright areas seem brighter. It's not what we usually see at FPC, but I like it in this context. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Karelj (talk) 12:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see interesting details here (including the areas in shadow in the front) but the combination of all of them is not harmonious to me. It is just too loaded and my eyes just don't find a path to follow when looking at this picture, sorry. Poc o² 08:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 09:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question Poc o², lNeverCry, would a crop like the one suggested on the file page help? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid, it wouldn't do it IMHO. Sorry, but I don't see a way out Poc o² 15:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info Alternative as suggested by Charles: structure in the foreground slightly brightened, also pinging Ikan Kekek, shizhao, cart-Talk, LivioAndronico ^(talk) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Milder Support - I'm OK with this one, too, but I tend to prefer the more dramatic contrast in the other version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Better, but still much too dark. Charles (talk) 11:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of oppose I think the original works better because it lets you focus on the temple while this adds a new element to the photo, but either of the versions could be promoted. --cart-Talk 11:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition messy --shizhao (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added a note about a weird ghost image in the center. Any ideas what this is? If it is not something that belongs there, I would oppose. – Lucas ^T 14:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it is what you've already suspected: a ghost (i.e. a person that is very blurred due to the long exposure) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Interesting texture and lighting, but ultimately too much going on. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per my vote above Poc o² 08:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 09:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ezarateesteban 18:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mexico-US border at Tijuana.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2017 at 04:40:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pending support An artistic view of a hot subject. There is however a bit of purple fringing on the right-hand section of the wall, it should be removed for an FP. --cart-Talk 09:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~for the time being~~ please correct tilted horizon --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fixed. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And the purple fringing too, please. :) --cart-Talk 21:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral tilted horizon thanks to Martin comment. Too simple composition, however, I understand your minimalist concept. Also colors look dead and the weather condition not helped. IMHO --The Photographer 13:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Support if still-serious purple fringing can be fixed. Daniel Case (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Ezarateesteban 18:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Himalayas Langtang.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2017 at 14:20:04 (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) 14:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Beautiful place but I think the image is way overprocessed, particularly the lower/right part comes across as totally flat. Resizing to a lower resolution would also benefit the quality, but seeing that it's 35mp there's enough detail there. KennyOMG (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support but agree that it is oversharpened. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 06:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Lovely. I can't say no to this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 10:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overprocessed Daniel Case (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 09:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 01:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rockenstein (Rhön) - Zustieg von Osten.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2017 at 13:43:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Jörg Braukmann| - uploaded by Milseburg - nominated by Milseburg -- Milseburg (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. A winding path is a very nice motif but here it doesn't lead anywhere interesting. The cross is too small and the path doesn't naturally lead the eye there anyways (it's a little too far to the left). I think there is also too much empty sky. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per King ... I wonder if a tighter crop on the path might have worked. Daniel Case (talk) 07:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't mind the sky at all, but otherwise, per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate version[edit]

Info I propose an alternate version. --Milseburg (talk) 12:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This image is completely different to the one above, you need to start a new nom for this one Poc o² 08:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I will do so next time. --Milseburg (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 01:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:White-throated Kingfisher in Ludhiana district, Punjab 03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2017 at 14:28:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category:Halcyon smyrnensis Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by Satdeep Gill - uploaded by Satdeep Gill - nominated by Satdeep Gill -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent image size and quality, maybe some minimal problem with severals lightflare distracting. BTW, I applied a noise reduction in the background --The Photographer 16:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am envious! I have tried so much to photograph Kingfishers and I get nothing like this! Congrats! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful bird. dllu (t,c) 01:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 06:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Just a little soft on part of the beak at full size, but full size is very large, indeed. Overall, quite a great bird picture, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Bill not great, but the rest is very good. Charles (talk) 12:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeWhen this was submitted as VI, I noticed colours are not true, so have changed my vote. Charles (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Satdeep Gill, one request: This is a white-throated kingfisher, right? Please make sure the filename reflects that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Ikan Kekek: IMHO the filename already says White-throated Kingfisher. What changes do you suggest ? Should I change it to just the name of the bird ? --Satdeep Gill (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It says "White-thorated Kingfisher". -- 16:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Question Good picture, but: The name says, this is a White-throated (not thorated as in the file name) Kingfisher , and all the pictures I found show a white throat. This picture shows a "Yellow-throated" Kingfisher, so I wonder wether the colours are correct --Llez (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ WB is far too warm -- Thennicke (talk) 07:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~~Per Thennicke~~. The perch doesn't look like anything found in nature either, and that bugs me. lNeverCry 09:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ As stated and pointed out above --Llez (talk) 11:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the white balance is corrected --Llez (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ This is good image, but need some more light + ~~desaturate (or lower color temp)~~. --Mile (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC) P.S. I would still add some light (exposure).[reply]
Comment Done I have fixed the WB of the image. --Satdeep Gill (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 01:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Abstract streaks of a building at night.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2017 at 03:24:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture (there may be something else more appropriate)
Info All by WClarke -- WClarke (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I've been experimenting with more abstract photography lately, which before now I've kept off Commons, though think I'm starting to make some of my more interesting work, and would be open to commentary. Just wanted to bring something different, even if it sees opposition. Thanks. WClarke (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose artificial, nothing special, simply blurred and out of scope for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I like good abstract art, but this feels random to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan --cart-Talk 09:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak support bold nomination that deserves support! The black background's a bit too dominating though. Besides: the nom is - of course - not out of scope as the image could help illustrate abstract photography at the very least. But Commons is/should be much more than a simple repository for the wiki world... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan and cart; also, image is kind of noisy. Daniel Case (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find the composition a bit strange with that … uhm … pillar of lights more or less in the centre. It does indeed have some kind of randomness about it, that disturbs me, even makes me feel a bit uneasy. Counter-acting this, there are repeating patterns that remind me of the benzene rings found in organic chemistry or maybe those fancy graphene nanoribbons. Or maybe just a honeycomb. I could go on with associations like this for a while, but the bottom line is that this is one of the rare images that makes my mind wander around, makes me think, makes me feel … well … things. Actually, it is the first FP candidate in a long time I might print and hang on my wall. Both versions. I'd very much like to see more nominations like this at FPC. --El Grafo (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate version[edit]

Support I also inverted the image and set it to grayscale, and thought the results were very nice and wanted to share it. Thanks. WClarke (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose artificial, nothing special, simply blurred and out of scope for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on the same basis as stated above. I do think some abstract photography should be featured, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan --cart-Talk 09:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Daniel Case (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support see above. --El Grafo (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--The Photographer 21:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

File:Iglesia de San Bartolomé de Tirajana - Gran Canaria - Windows.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2017 at 12:55:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - None of the individual windows have wow for me, and some have depictions of faces that strike me as mediocre. However, this complete panorama of the windows wows me because of its scope, comprehensiveness and high quality. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good, compo also good. ~~I would edit borders at first shot from right side.~~ --Mile (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Thanks for the hint --Llez (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 19:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PtrQs (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice combo. --cart-Talk 20:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 21:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 22:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 23:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Mittivakkat glacier mouth.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2017 at 19:51:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Clemens Stockner - uploaded by Clemens Stockner - nominated by User:Clemens Stockner -- Clemens Stockner (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Clemens Stockner (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Is soft at 100% but at 24 mp it has enough latitude. KennyOMG (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This surely has wow, so that's enough of a reason to support a feature, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 23:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ...and 7 --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 23:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support remember fix the vignething --The Photographer 23:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support For sure a finalist in POTY. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support Wish it could have had better DoF, but still stunning. Daniel Case (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. A pity that the ice on the lower left is overexposed, but very good nonetheless. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support good compo --Mile (talk) 07:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support technically nothing special, but great shot. Charles (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pile on wow. --cart-Talk 10:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--XRay ^talk 19:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 22:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - technical imperfections, sure, but I only wish all of my Greenland glacier photos were this good... ;) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 23:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Niagara Falls before sunrise.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2017 at 12:47:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Canada
Info Canada. Niagara Falls before sunrise. Created, uploaded and nominated by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 12:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 12:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The titled bridge and that house on the left and right hand edges are bothering me a bit, and some bokeh disks of distant lights in the center have weird dark spots in them, but all these anomalies are too small in the frame to be of importance and the wow factor is strong enough. – Lucas ^T 16:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
regretful oppose both very wow-y and much too overprocessed, sorry --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overprocessed + noisy too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This would be great as a painting, but as a photo per above I'm afraid. -- KTC (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. There are quality issues but not that major in light of the 32 MP resolution. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overprocessed Daniel Case (talk) 07:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 09:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, unfortunately. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wow is there, but I am hesitant. What time was it taken? EXIF shows 11:12, but it looks to be in the evening. --Yann (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: I set time on all my cameras to UTC. This picture was taken on local time at 6:12 a.m. (UTC-5) -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK, I understand better the light condition. Yann (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--The Photographer 21:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Secretaria da Justiça e da Defesa da Cidadania, São Paulo, Brasil.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2017 at 12:54:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info All by -- The Photographer 12:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent. There look to be 2 tiny dust spots right near the top margin, just about directly above the 3rd-to-rightmost window on the top of the building, so take a look. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks Ikan, it was difficult to find. --The Photographer 13:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good photo --Rjcastillo (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support As always. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 09:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry to spoil the party, but I really don't see what's so special about this. It has a reasonably interesting subject and without doubt it's technically well done, but where's the wow? --El Grafo (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I sadly have to agree with El Grafo here, the image does not excite me in any way. – Lucas ^T 17:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To me, there's a peaceful feeling of near-symmetry, and it's sharp, with clean lines. I could be accused of being too influenced by my feelings about some great paintings that do this better, and the light could be a bit warmer, but I think this is quite a good work of photographic art per se that deserves a feature because of its pure craftsmanship and its achievement of the fine goal The Photographer set out to achieve. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--The Photographer 21:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Österreichischer Filmpreis 2017 photo call Egon Schiele Tod und Mädchen Franz Novotny 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2017 at 18:53:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created and uploaded by Tsui - nominated by W.carter -- cart-Talk 18:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Film producer Franz Novotny at the Austrian Film Awards 2017. A good, well lit portrait full of character. -- cart-Talk 18:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild support The bokeh sucks, but the pose (especially the facial expression) is impressive enough to make up for it. lNeverCry 09:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 11:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the way that looking-askance pose says confidently that "Ich bin ein ERNSTER Künstler!" And I also looooovvvvvve that jacket ... it looks like he grabbed some of the carpet and whipped it up before the event. Daniel Case (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice and expressive portrait! -- Slaunger (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--The Photographer 21:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Oxford High Street Facing West, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 06:55:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created and uploaded by Diliff - nominated by me --Code (talk) 06:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent quality, interesting subject and pleasant light. I like especially the contrast between the warm sandstone tones of the buildings and the red buses as well as the change between light and shadow. --Code (talk) 06:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 09:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Living in Oxford I can say that this is the wrong time of day to take this photo. Far too much shadow. Charles (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Charles. Also the verticals are slightly leaning outwards. -- Colin (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. In addition to deferring to his local knowledge, it also seems to me like the shadow was perhaps overenthusiastically suppressed. Daniel Case (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much shadowed parts --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Code (talk) 06:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 06:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've only just seen this now so it's a bit late, but for what it's worth, I'm not sure how you would get a shot with much less in shadow. The angle and curve of the street makes it difficult and I found nothing on Google Image search that was any better - all the sunlit photos have the same shadow on the left side and sunlight on the right. The best you are likely to get in terms of balanced lighting is an overcast day but then it won't look very pretty. Diliff (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shah Safi I of Persia on Horseback Carrying a Mace- Sahand Ace.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 13:06:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
InfoShah Safi I of Persia (reg. 1629-42) on horseback carrying a mace. North India, 18th/19th Century. gouache and gold on paper, gold and brown borders, inscribed in cursive script, inscribed verso Shaw Suffee, King of Persia. Provenance: Scottish private collection. uploaded by Sahand Ace-- Sahand Ace 13:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sahand Ace 13:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - Very good, but needs digital restoration for a feature, I think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan. lNeverCry 06:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose restoration needed --Mile (talk) 09:44, 16 February 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: Digital restoration needed Ezarateesteban 12:39, 16 February 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, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eolophus roseicapilla in flight, Albury NSW.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2017 at 04:46:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info A Galah in flight.
Info All by me -- Thennicke (talk) 04:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 04:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Definitely a good picture, but I don't think the focus is up to the great standard of flying birds we've promoted to FP during the time I've been here. Maybe longer-standing FPC habitues would have more to say about this, but that's my take on it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have the following problem: The bird is very noisy, whereas the background is not. In addition the contour of the bird is partly very unsharp (it "fades away"). Comparing the different versions one can see, that the background was also very noisy in the first version, but there was done a noise reduction of the background with an unsharp border to the bird or that the bird was cut out with unsharp borders and was added to the completely noise-reduced original photo --Llez (talk) 09:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Llez. The processing is too sloppy and has this visible blurred boundary. – Lucas ^T 17:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. What a shame you weren't able to keep the bird as it was in the original image. Daniel Case (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 23:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Thennicke (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 06:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eschrichtius robustus ALM 1702 p2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2017 at 03:10:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by Cvmontuy - uploaded by Cvmontuy - nominated by Cvmontuy -- Cvmontuy (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cvmontuy (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough going on to make this impressive. If there were several whales or if one wale was surfacing and I could see most of its body, I'd probably be wowed. lNeverCry 03:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree. Charles (talk) 08:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree, too. Perfectly good QI, but not striking enough for a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per INC. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 13 February 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: two days without participation, too much oppose votes to have a chance to success Ezarateesteban 18:22, 17 February 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, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 06:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Reflection of La Manzanilla Mangrove.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2017 at 00:04:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image isn't very sharp, and I have trouble separating the water from the actual trees. IMO nothing in the photograph really stands out, and overall it is very dark with little contrast. Sorry. WClarke 03:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At first look, this almost seems to me to need 90 degrees counter-clockwise rotation. No wow for me per WClarke in any event. lNeverCry 03:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WClarke – Lucas ^T 08:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Loved it at first look but not at second. There is simply too much going on, lots of CA and it's tilted. A slightly less "include all" would probably do the trick though since it's a really cool idea. --cart-Talk 10:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Took me a while to figure out what this is even showing. Too messy and dark. – Lucas ^T 17:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per cart and Lucas. Daniel Case (talk) 18:04, 13 February 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: 5 days without participation, too much oppose votes to success Ezarateesteban 18:17, 17 February 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, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 06:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Église Saint-Pierre d'Auxerre - interior.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2017 at 21:39:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Dull lighting, blown highlights in the windows with lost details, the crop cuts the stone supports' edges off. – Lucas ^T 21:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Lucasbosch. Additionally bad bottom crop and the processing is not very convincing. Looks like too much clarity or something. Not very sharp either. --Code (talk) 09:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lucas. Daniel Case (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, per Lucas --Michielverbeek (talk) 08:09, 11 February 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: Four votes opposing and three days without participation, minimus chances to success --Ezarateesteban 20:03, 14 February 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, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ezarateesteban 18:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Exploding E match collage.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2017 at 22:36:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by me. Please read my replys below to learn what E matches are used for and why the image looks the way it does. – Lucas ^T 22:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lucas ^T 22:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I would preferably like to see much more of the "fireworks". At least all of the central white-hot core and above it the same length of the sparks as on the sides. Even if the E-matches are the subject, the flame is what makes the photo go wow. Do not be stingy with the "wow". ;) It would also be nice to have some link or explanation about these E-matches in the description, such as what it is that burns/sparks when (as I suspect) a current is making a filament in the bulb hot to ignite the chems. --cart-Talk 23:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: 1. My thought process with this was to provide as much detail on the E matches on the bottom while also showing the ignition on the top so I arrived at this exact framing and I didn't capture any more of the flame at the top. In my opinion, there is enough flame included for effect and the flame is not the main subject so I feel the crop is not harming. Please also consider that I can't show more of it in a reshoot without increasing my focus distance and thus lowering the resolution of the rest in the process (to maintain the same scale of all objects) or alternatively change this composition which I like. You can see that the flame/sparks of these E matches are quite far reaching by looking at the linked other version on the file page. So I would always have to crop the flame somewhere, depending on which direction it goes. 2. There is sadly no english wiki page about them, only a german one, in which the image is already used. I'm no expert on them so I'm hesitant to describe the processes in detail, but I added a bit more info. – Lucas ^T 23:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm wowed, good composition --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cart. Maybe it would be more impressive if I could see it in use, lighting a cigarette or a candle. But mostly this image makes me think why bother with these things when regular matches or Bic lighters are everywhere... lNeverCry 09:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@INeverCry: I think you are misunderstanding what these things are for. E matches are not intended/practical/safe to light up a cigarette or candle, they are used to ignite fireworks and thus are usually deeply buried into whatever they are igniting. They are an integral part of professional fireworks all over the world, firing thousands of charges in the matter of minutes, all computer controlled. The E match is where information technology and electricity ends and chemistry begins. Showing them igniting anything else would be wrong and plain misleading, just to make the image more interesting to some. It would be almost impossible to photograph them inside a pyrotechnics charge while they are firing, or very dangerous at least so I would never try to do that just for a FP. – Lucas ^T 09:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, perhaps a vertical composition showing more of the ignition and sparking would work better. lNeverCry 20:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Martin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per cart --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Martin WClarke (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lucas, I understand your point about having to show them this way but ... for that very reason I think this is condemned to be a VI, maybe a QI, at best. First, I don't like the crop; second, I think showing the match both pre and post in the same shot is sort of misleading ... I know it is done for educational reasons, but this is not obvious to the viewer. Daniel Case (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 06:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Münster, LVM -- 2017 -- 6351-7.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2017 at 19:23:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 19:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info It's a worm's-eye view of the office building LVM 1, a skyscraper, of the LVM insurance in Münster, Germany --XRay ^talk 19:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 19:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! Reflections within reflections, almost like the grid trench on the Death Star. ;) --cart-Talk 20:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question have you tested how this composition looks if you crop the left edge for that diagonal roof on the upper left ? --PtrQs (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but IMO it is not better. But you're right, often it's better. --XRay ^talk 05:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Basotxerri (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ezarateesteban 00:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I could see this being in B&W as well, but either way very nice composition. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 02:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 06:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent. A bit soft maybe --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PtrQs (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. (Btw, your b&w version looks like a straight b&w conversion. Usually b&w gives you the flexibility to be more adventurous in adjusting the levels and contrast.) -- Colin (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, b&w is more flexible for structures. And I like b&w. But it is not a straight conversion, nevertheless I should improve the b&w image. --XRay ^talk 13:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 06:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nicosia 01-2017 img20 View from Shacolas Tower.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2017 at 15:51:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info All by A.Savin --A.Savin 15:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 15:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great photo – Lucas ^T 17:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--XRay ^talk 19:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support great lighting --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. Maybe The crop on the top is quite tight. --Milseburg (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support good contrast to the landscape --PtrQs (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine detail and great composition. Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 22:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 06:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ceiling of the salon de la Reine (Louvre).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2017 at 10:20:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The upper left corner is too soft for me. Two other corners are a bit soft and one corner is well-behaved. – Lucas ^T 10:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Crop --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 06:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp and balanced light conditions--Michielverbeek (talk) 08:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 08:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You could crop more in bottom to bring lines in same distance above and in bottom. --Mile (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Mile,thanks --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support a crop isn't needed. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 06:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ezarateesteban 00:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)) 13:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Phasianus colchicus MHNT Skeleton.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2017 at 07:39:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
Info The skeleton of a Common Pheasant.
Info Created and uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 07:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 07:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 09:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - High-quality and well-composed, so I think it deserves a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose NIKON D800E using a very low size to hide quality problems?. Support Good now --The Photographer 12:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find the DOF too thin, parts are OOF. – Lucas ^T 14:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality, high EV, that's what Commons is made for... Yann (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks to Thennicke for this appointment. I remember this picture, which has imperfections. I will not look for this specimen, but it seems interesting to me and I shot it in the reserves of the Museum. Without flash, nor tripod, wanting to make a stack of focus. These are not good conditions. In the end the result is not bad, but chance is for many. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~it's a downsized image.~~ Thanks for keep it in full size --The Photographer 10:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Oppose~~ Purely on that basis that according to the guidelines 'Images should not be downsampled'. @Archaeodontosaurus: may wish to revert image to its original size. Charles (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good now. Charles (talk) 11:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had already thought about it, it's a good idea. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ezarateesteban 00:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Autoportrait de Félix Nadar - edit.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2017 at 18:38:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Félix Nadar (Self-portrait) - uploaded, restored (original) and nominated by me. -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 19:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 22:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just wonder if I should remove the white letters too? Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 22:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great self-portrait and restoration. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support wonderful picture & restoration + high EV. Great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 09:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very expressive portrait and a good restauration. --cart-Talk 10:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Btw, this may just be my monitor I'm using right now, but I see some green and purple patches over the image, whereas surely the photo is neutral brown. -- Colin (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: I noticed that me too, this come from the version of the BNF, less visible because less contrasted on the orginal. This is likely a chemichal deterioration through age, I don't know how to fix that. But this is less visible on the version before the upload?!? Just for the record the file, since Gallica was file.jpg (Gallica) → transfered to my PC and then saved in file.tif on my pc → worked in photoshop file.psd → result saved in file.jpg → then uploadeded in Commons. Note that those patches are much less visible both in the psd version, but also in the result.jpg before to be uploaded here. So I don't know what happened between the .jpg on my pc and the .jpg in Commons, if that comes from Wikimedia server or from an issue with color space. --Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware that MediaWiki do any processing on your JPG so if you download the full size JPG it should be identical to what you uploaded. If you view a thumbnail (any reduced size version) then MediaWiki may replace your sRGB colour profile with a "TinyRGB" profile that Facebook developed that is smaller filesize but close enough to the true sRGB that differences should be small. When you are comparing the JPGs and saying they look different, are you using the same software? If you are comparing an image on Photoshop with an image on a browser, then it is likely the difference is the software. -- Colin (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see the jpg on Commons with my browser (IE) and the jpg on my pc with the Windows Photo Viewer, and the jpg seen with Windows Photo Viewer is very similar to the psd seen with photoshop.. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC) Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC) I just downloaded the jpg from Commons to my pc and compared with the former jpg, they are quite similar, then it may come from the browser. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Photo Viewer is not colour managed so will neither respect the embedded colour profile in a JPG nor the colour profile you may have assigned/calibrated for your monitor. IE and Edge may respect the JPG profile but not your monitor. See User:Colin/BrowserTest. Photoshop and Lightroom provide the most accurate colours. -- Colin (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question Do you know what year the original photograph is from? WClarke 18:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gallica say between 1900 and 1910 Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 05:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Kaaba, Makkah3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2017 at 21:43:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info al-Kaʿbah in Makkah. created by Moataz Egbaria - uploaded by Moataz Egbaria - nominated by Moataz1997 -- Moataz1997 (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Moataz1997 (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Has wow, but in my opinion, not of good enough technical quality for a feature. See how much better in quality this FP is: File:Supplicating Pilgrim at Masjid Al Haram. Mecca, Saudi Arabia.jpg. Or this VI, which is too small to be featured: File:Kaaba mirror edit jj.jpg. A closeup picture of the Kaaba would be wonderful to feature, but by comparison to the other two photos, see how drab and grainy it is, and the perspective is strange, as the railing and floor seem to be going down, such that one could almost be afraid it's a ship that could capsize. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with regrets. Of course, we need good pictures from Mecca and even Category:Quality images of Saudi Arabia is still empty and non-existent. But I have to agree with IK, and the main problem here is the strong unsharpness at the left, which is not fixable. So, even if all the chromatic aberrations are removed, this photo still not at QI/FP level. --A.Savin 23:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite its flaws... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The technical quality is not good enough for a feature: perspective issues, unsharpness and CA (violet and blue-green fringes). --Cayambe (talk) 09:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perspective and CA issues noted by Cayambe. Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per everyone else due to technical issues WClarke (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 00:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 05:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mercado Municipal (São Paulo) 07.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2017 at 19:25:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info All by -- The Photographer 19:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 08:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support An improvement over the other nomination. Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Much better, but what stayed is the weird, smooth look (like a painting) and thus removing detail on everything. Additionally, there are artificial shapes looking like bacteria, best visible in the blurred background. My guess is too agressive noise reduction that robs the detail and might produce these weird shapes. – Lucas ^T 17:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not bad at all considering the light conditions. Good EV and despite all that dead meat, it is a photo that lives. --cart-Talk 11:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed, as for Lucas. --smial 22:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Lucas. --Karelj (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 21:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 05:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food and drink

File:AvMalecon-LaHabanaCuba-04735.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2017 at 13:46:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info all by me --Ezarateesteban 13:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is an oil stamp on the left, it isn´t a dust spot Ezarateesteban 13:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 13:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I uploaded a new version (however I reverted myself). This version have a noise fix, WB and shadow fix (How a good practice it could be done from the RAW). Nice picture from Cuba!. --The Photographer 15:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another version processed from RAW, thanks!!! Ezarateesteban 15:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I think this deserves a feature, and I didn't think so until I opened the file and looked at it at larger sizes. Good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It is a good photo and an interesting idea but I want to move the camera more to the right. --cart-Talk 09:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support We haven't too much images from populist dictatorships countries where time stopped. These old carts and Habana pier are an icon. We need more images from Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea --The Photographer 10:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 12:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though the right part is a bit leaning in, and I would like a bit more space at right, the image is very special with a spacious feel, color and composition are harmonious too. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A QI definitely, but not special enough for FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per cart Poc o² 08:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel. lNeverCry 09:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral In spite of the vertical distortion and the lamppost's CAs I like it, especially the high key colors. So if this can be fixed - and the speck obove the boot - it deserves my support. --PtrQs (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @PtrQs: I uploaded a new version without CA, thanks for you review!!, and I reduced a bit the vertical distortion, I uploaded the RAW version if you want to help me to fix the picture, Regards!!! Ezarateesteban 23:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ezarate: I've checked the possibility of fixing the distortion. As this causes a cut on the right edge, I took your broader jpg-version from Feb. 8, 16:32. With this version a nearly rectlinear picture is possible without much loss of lampposts on the right. So if you don't want to take the very good 'Alt Version' with a nice warm WB by The Photographer from below, I could fix your problems. - BTW: how do you transfer/put raw-versions on Commons? --PtrQs (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PtrQs: We can keep both versions IMHO so if you want to fix the picture go ahead, it´s a collaborative project so any help is welcome, thanks!!! Ezarateesteban 14:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It took me a full hour of hard LR-work to find out, how The Photographer managed to create the alt-version (and I hope I've learned a lot along this way) but aside from a different rating of verticality it did not get any better. Espacially he managed to let the line of the road go rather slighty up than down, wich creates a positive impression, so I'll fully support this version. --PtrQs (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK for my last question. As I expected a 'raw'-file from your Sony, I've overseen the 'dng'-Raw file. --PtrQs (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PtrQs: You can upload RAW on the WMF Labs here. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support the last version. --Yann (talk) 13:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support the last version, although there still are 2 little specks: each at the end of the clouds left an right of the lamps of the center lamppost (see annotations). --PtrQs (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done --The Photographer 14:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alt version

Info I'm only adding this alt version because the author is acking for help and I'm sorry if the result is not the best. I applied over the raw file light compensation in shadows and lights, White balance, tonemaping balance, fix lens distortion, fix vertical distortions, remove dust spots, noise reduction and chromatic aberration fix, cut element distracting and remove oil spot and finally export in full jpeg quality. --The Photographer 13:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitively better. Yann (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I decide to use the version final of The Photographer to obtain the best picture, thanks!! If anyone disagree with this please revert to me. Regards!! Ezarateesteban 23:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination We don't need now this alt The Photographer 13:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 3 neutral → featured. /--The Photographer 21:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

The chosen alternative is: File:AvMalecon-LaHabanaCuba-04735.jpg

File:Backlit ficus elastica leaf texture 2014 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2017 at 13:32:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created by Julian Herzog - uploaded by Julian Herzog - ~~nominated by Shizhao~~ -- shizhao (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC) renomination by --Mile (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- shizhao (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ex {{FPD}} ...i will retake nomination. --Mile (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Everyone needs to look at this at full size. It's remarkable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support truly remarkable --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressing. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 19:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At full size, this seems soft. There is no definition to the leaf. And it seems that the black background has been added. Charles (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The black background is real in this case. I would agree though that the image could be sharper. — Julian H.^✈ 07:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I remember this from the "Surface textures" photo challenge. It got 2nd place, despite not actually being a photograph of surface texture: being backlit it is more akin to an x-ray than a photograph of surface texture detail, which would require side lighting. -- Colin (talk) 08:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Taking into account Charles's criticisms, I nevertheless find this a pleasure to apprehend. Daniel Case (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I would have liked better resolution and having more parts of the leaf in focus, but the image looks good enough beyond the so-often-employed-100%-view that I'll let it be. – Lucas ^T 22:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 09:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 15:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice structure --PtrQs (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 22:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Lietavský hrad-východná strana.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2017 at 07:39:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info created & uploaded by Volodka22 - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Left side is very dark; the center is also a bit dark. Sub-optimal light conditions. lNeverCry 00:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Finally a picture with realistic lights! It does seem a bit heavy in the yellows, maybe try to reduce red/green a bit? KennyOMG (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nicely detailed but ... I don't know, I think the composition suffers as between the forest and the clouds the impressive structure gets lost. The dark patches noted by INC also don't help. Daniel Case (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. – Lucas ^T 18:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - I quite like the dramatic lighting of the ruined castle. However, I would like to delete about 1/4 of the leftmost part of the picture, which in my opinion detracts from the composition. I'll try to input a rough crop suggestion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support But per Ikan --Llez (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice shot, but colour seems to me strange (Per Kenny). — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 22:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 18:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The seat of war in the West Indies 1740.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2017 at 06:47:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps
Info created by G. Foster (1740), scanned by John Carter Brown library - uploaded by Hispalois - nominated by Hispalois -- Hispalois (talk) 06:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hispalois (talk) 06:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 00:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting document, good quality. --Yann (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support By now we've got quite a number of high-quality reproductions of historic maps, but this one stands out through all those annotations. --El Grafo (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per El Grafo. Fascinating, and in good enough condition not to need digital restoration. What a lot of plundering those British "Buccaniers" were doing! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 18:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:מתחם אַוּגוּסְטֶה ויקטוֹריה.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2017 at 07:19:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created & uploaded by אורי אלוני (Ori Aloni) - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 07:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 07:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 09:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 00:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 11:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the lightning --Llez (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is the big thing in the middle of the sky, a dust spot?? Am I alone to wonder what it is? Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting us to it Christian. I had to recalibrate my monitor to see it and now I can't unsee it. Hopefully it can be removed, right Tomer T? --cart-Talk 13:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can see it even in the thumbnail on this page. As it would be embarrassing to have that in a featured photo, I will for the time being Oppose on this basis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 18:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gomateswara, Shravanabelagola.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 18:35:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Dey.sandip - uploaded by Dey.sandip - nominated by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simply wonderful! KennyOMG (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Really nice picture and composition, however, the image is cut in both pinky toes level --The Photographer 18:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Please add a category above. Yann (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done Thanks --The Photographer 23:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with The Photographer, but we have so few such images that also contain a human figure doing something/worshipping that this elevates it. -- Colin (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't mind the cut so much. Such a large statue has to be cut somewhere and a wider crop would have diminished the person in the image too much. Now you can focus on her beautiful gesture without being too distracted by the statue. Very nicely done. --cart-Talk 21:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 06:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks better at full-res. Daniel Case (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 03:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Matthew Norman carriage clock with winding key.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2017 at 17:18:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info Matthew Norman carriage clock with winding key. My shot. --Mile (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't like the centered composition, empty space on the left and the dark blue shapes in the background. A pure black BG would be much cleaner. – Lucas ^T 17:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but per Lucas. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. For something shiny like this you're not going to have 0% overexposure, but still this is too much, especially on the columns on the right. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - If you get rid of the strange blue spots in the otherwise black background, I will reconsider. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info Other option. --Mile (talk) 08:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Support - Not perfect, but seems good enough to me. What do you all think? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think we are far too sensitive about "overexposed" parts in a pic sometimes. The very bright and dark parts in an image is what creates the mood/drama/mystery, without it you get clinical catalogue photos with little wow. --cart-Talk 11:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support cart, all true, i was telling that before. I wouldnt go into shot, probably King like, in any case. First what i like, then i can combine other whishes. That image, without "overexposed" parts would seems very "dead", unwow or whatever. --Mile (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 17:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - better this way. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 22:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ezarateesteban 00:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

The chosen alternative is: File:Matthew Norman carriage clock.jpg

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:Detail van een met rijp bedekte eik (Quercus).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 16:51:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants # Familie: Fagaceae.
Info Detail of a frost-covered oak (Quercus) in the fog. For me the picture radiates calm. Trust. It will be fine. all by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 17:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty significant camera shake which was apparent to me even at preview size. It's a nice scene but even with VR/IS, it's very difficult to get acceptable sharpness with 1/13s handheld at 85mm. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharpness Je-str (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid I have to agree with the other opposers... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 07:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 03:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jamaican giant anole (Anolis garmani) juvenile.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2017 at 19:48:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info This little lizard will grow to around 40cm, but for now it is 15cm long and happy to pose in a cut roadside bamboo, high in the Blue Mountains of Jamaica. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMHO Chromatic noise, white aura around of the head, lack of DoF. I added notes --The Photographer 20:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~can't see your notes~~ @The Photographer: . 'White aura' is natural. Charles (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a white glow above in the head exactly and forming the contour white like a white wind blowing over aligator face, this effect could be maybe the result of a wrong tecnique on the background layer in the noise reduction procedure --The Photographer 22:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what you are talking about I'm afraid. I didn't use layers. Charles (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes It was a suposition, however, the problem still there. The main problem is noise and Lack of DoF --The Photographer 12:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Noisy, lack of DOF. – Lucas ^T 08:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks overprocessed to me, see legs or the border of the bamboo Poc o² 13:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Well, I thought it was cute! Charles (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's a very cute image and I am a rectil lover. My comment was only about the image quality. Sorry --The Photographer 15:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahum... you might want to rephrase that... --cart-Talk 17:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LOL @ -Talk, what if it is not a slip? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 03:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Funchal Jardim Monte 2016 7.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 21:44:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Karelj -- Karelj (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but for me this is a snapshot, not a FP. --PtrQs (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp enough for FP --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 07:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are probably a number of good things to photograph on this location, but this is too unsharp and the composition is not good. --cart-Talk 10:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You know you've been doing this too long when your first reaction to seeing that patch of blue in the upper right was to try to find the curves panel ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Karelj (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 03:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eerste zonnestralen strijken over een winters landschap. Locatie, Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen) en omgeving 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 18:07:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info First sunbeams sweep over a winter landscape. Location, Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen) and surroundings. All by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really like your early sunrise hoar frost images a lot and it reminds me that I should get up earlier myself for shooting but this one doesn't convince me as a FP, sorry. The middle tree which seems to be the main subject results in a too centred composition and it covers the water behind which could be interesting or not but at least would give a bit more depth. And I would prefer that there wouldn't be these cut-off branches on the right. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lovely scene, but per Basotxerri – Lucas ^T 22:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basotxerri. lNeverCry 06:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Basotxerri. I don't mind the framing with the trees but the diagonal slice of road is unfortunately counterproductive. Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question: this picture is better?

--Famberhorst (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 03:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative, another version.[edit]

Info First sunbeams sweep over a winter landscape. Location, Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen) and surroundings. All by Famberhorst
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Пелистер 03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 13:44:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Шпиц - uploaded by Шпиц - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Leaning to the left, can you correct it? 16:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment it'd be nice to know who is proposing this --PtrQs (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the page history the comment was made by KennyOMG. Signatures can sometimes turn out faulty. --cart-Talk 21:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose B&W can make some photos more interesting but this is unfortunately not the case here. The loss of color doesn't add anything to this picture. B&W is also a totally different technique, most of the times you need some contrast and light adjustment after removing the color. --cart-Talk 21:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cart, I too thought it was b&w but actually there is a little colour on their jackets. Btw, the photo is in AdobeRGB colourspace, which isn't suitable for web images. -- Colin (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, I was under the impression that AdobeRGB is fine if it is tagged and using modern browser (testing this here: http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html), is AdobeRGB really still bad on the web nowadays? – Lucas 22:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Colin, I stand corrected. I didn't look at the colourspace and thought it was just a bad BW conversion. It doesn't alter my non-wow-y feeling for the photo though. --cart-Talk 22:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Colin/BrowserTest. Modern desktop browsers are all colour managed wrt the JPG if there is an embedded colour profile. Articles such as the one you link unhelpfully use the word "tagged" but in fact EXIF tags indicating the colour space are totally ignored by all browsers: only the embedded profile matters. However, in an 8-bit JPG, using AdobeRGB will require a conversion to sRGB to display on 99% of desktop monitors, which runs a risk of causing posterisation in colour graduations such as the sky or on skin tones. It is intended as a profile for sending to a print shop because it better captures some of the colours that CMYK can print. Most people using AdobeRGB have read somewhere it has "more colours" (it doesn't, it has the same number of colours as sRGB, just covering a wider gamut) but since >99% of people have sRGB monitors, most people picking this profile cannot actually view these more vivid colours themselves. It was never intended as a shared display profile and is not recommended for web use. Mobile browsers are not colour managed (though someone told be the latest iPhone might be). Since mobile traffic is now at least as significant as desktop traffic in terms of numbers, and only growing, this remains a problem. Users on the mobile browsers that are not colour managed will see the wrong colours. Cart my colourspace comment wasn't really related to the desaturated/b&w confusion. Just something I spotted when looking at the EXIF to see if the file had been desaturated somewhat. -- Colin (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! And here I thought it had some nifty function so you could see if a photo was in RGB or greyscale. --cart-Talk 22:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cart, if the photo had genuinely been saved as a greyscale JPG then yes the EXIF would likely indicate that. But not many professional image programs even offer that option, and I think many b&w photos are actually colour JPGs. -- Colin (talk) 08:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support The spot color (sort of) was a nice surprise. Daniel Case (talk) 05:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Works very well visually but the colourspace issue should be fixed. --Code (talk) 06:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the image is still available as a raw file, and can be re-exported as an sRGB JPG, I wouldn't recommend changing the colourspace. -- Colin (talk) 08:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support lNeverCry 06:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It isn't really wowing me. The footsteps idea is a common one and I'm puzzled at the choice of landscape aspect ratio here. It is just a bit too dull and murky and not dramatic enough for me. And the colour on the jackets isn't vivid enough to be a spot highlight. -- Colin (talk) 08:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition (footsteps). Charles (talk) 11:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the image would be realistic without the footsteps. They clearly show that the mountaineers have passed through the snow.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the footprints are key. I didn't make myself clear, sorry. I think they would be better going on a diagonal. 19:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose, at least for the moment. I actually like the composition, but it looks under-exposed to me. In a scene like this, where you have snow with strong sunlight you would expect at least some areas that are close to pure white, but there's plenty of space left on the right side of the histogram. EXIF data suggests that it was shot with an exposure compensation of -1/3 EV, while you'd normally compensate into the other direction for snowy landscapes. Easily fixed in post even from the JPG version, but I'd prefer it to be done by the author based on the RAW file. Maybe even pull down the shadows a bit, it's a pretty high-contrast scene after all. Personally, I'd also go for a pure b&w version, as that little bit of colour doesn't really add anything other than distraction to the image (for me). --El Grafo (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 03:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brassica oleracea 2011 G1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2017 at 18:20:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm so hoping you're not being serious, George. Kinda boring, unfortunate shadows and no DoF. Charles (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OH MY DOG Charles! I hope so much that you're kidding, a little respect please. The photos do not like? Ok ....but not discredit or scared publishers just because it is not to your taste. Especially educated people and adorable as George. I too often see jobs that are scary for me here, but I think already the rejection is quite disheartening for a person who should not be ridiculed. I'm sorry if I was rude but honestly I did not like this your Comment --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 23:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mild support Beautiful in its way ... doesn't make me want to eat it any more than I already do (But at least it does make better soup than a rose!) Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles. IMHO the tone of Charles's oppose seems to be meant as a bit of friendly ribbing rather than disrespect. George is a real gentleman, so I doubt anything disagreeable was intended. lNeverCry 03:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apologies to George if my comment was taken as rude. No disrespect. Exactly the opposite. In the UK, we only laugh with people we respect. Charles (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The structure sure is interesting and once you get rid of some of the white glare many of these vegetables often have, it becomes quite beautiful. I have a version in my dropbox if you are interested, George. --cart-Talk 11:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For my taste too harsh light and some missing wow, sorry. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 02:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Herz-Jesu-Kirche, Berlin-Prenzlauer Berg, 360x180, 160427, ako.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 07:03:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Spherical panorama of the Sacred Heart Church (Herz-Jesu-Kirche) in Berlin-Prenzlauer Berg. Please have a look at it in the 360° panoramic viewer before voting! All by me. -- Code (talk) 07:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support fascinating as always! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Indeed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 09:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I hope perform 360 panorama pictures like this in the end of this year. Well done, nice quality --The Photographer 10:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. Charles (talk) 11:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The question we seem to be asking wrt these church interiors is "What would Jesus think?" I reckon he'd approve of this one :-) -- Colin (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And with this technology, not so many 2D church interiors are going to get FP status. Isn't there a way to show the image in 2D better than this rather weird construction whcih puts me off? Charles (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, generally these images are shot with an ultra-wide angle lens or a fisheye lens, and aren't nearly as detailed as we have come to expect from the stitched images such as Diliff's, which might be shot with a 50mm lens. I think there's room for both kind of image on Commons. These images are best enjoyed interactively, and that is certainly educational, but have limited use for single frame or print purposes. I think we'll continue to feature lots of 2D church interiors. Compare the level of detail in File:Herz-Jesu-Kirche, Innenraum, Berlin-Prenzlauer Berg, 150806, ako.jpg, which is also deserving of FP imo. -- Colin (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 10:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question How are these images made ? Certainly not consumable in print format/and can be made sense only with an interactive viewer, and Commons require images that can be seen or printed, right? This feels like a video in the interactive viewer, are these getting FP nominations now ? May be, then the FPC text should be updated. Just, IMHO -- Dey.sandip (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Dey.sandip They are made by stitching together many individual photos using a tool like Hugin or PtGui and choosing an equilateral projection, while ensuring the vertical covers 180° and the horizontal 360°. Currently the viewer is experimental tool at wmflabs but the plan is to integrate this into Wikipedia just like viewing a video is integrated into Wikipedia. So they aren't much different to video - a special viewer is required. -- Colin (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dey.sandip: We've already featured a lot of these. I think the educational value of such 3D pictures is extremely high. It gives you a full impression of a building and makes distances and proportions visible in a way a 2D picture never could. I think we should strongly encourage people to create and upload much more of these pictures. Of course that doesn't mean that any of these should be promoted FP but on the other hand why shouldn't the better ones be FP as well as any good 2D picture? --Code (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great, thanks for the clarification -- Dey.sandip (talk) 06:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- In answer to your point about videos: We feature those, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support wonderful Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 02:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:120 inch HDPE pipe installation.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2017 at 05:00:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 07:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the frame within a frame, and the silhouettes of the men working on the distant pipe. -- Colin (talk) 07:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Colin --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 10:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! --Basotxerri (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A picture that's worth to enlarge! --PtrQs (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a great photo that looks like a vinyl record from a distance until you see the people in the middle. dllu (t,c) 02:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting, I saw it was a 35mm, I wonder what would be the result when taken by far but with a 200mm and crushing perspective. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @ Christian Ferrer, good point... Whenever possible, I back away as much as I can and start with the longest zoom and walk my way in... I did exactly what you say, but my lens was only 135mmm (216 mm full frame equivalent) and got pretty good result. I just uploaded those versions here #REDIRECT[[14]] and here #REDIRECT[[15]]. The reason I chose the one nominated is because a shorter focal length game me more DoF and altered the proportion in order to get more pipe wall (with longer focal length the inner wall shrinks) and get an idea of longer distance. The next pipe is about 100 meters away. In this case is a matter of preference. Thanks for your comment and support. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Hood made right in the center of the target :) Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Artistic. Very good job. Cute. Lyric photography IMO--Lmbuga (talk) 12:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks sort of like HAL, but with different colors, when seen at thumb size. Daniel Case (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 17:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 09:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Cambridge skyline November 2016 panorama.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2017 at 21:19:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good, excelent light Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Clemens Stockner (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 23:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 23:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice panorama; I added it to the Cambridge article on the English Wikipedia. WClarke 00:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support good Charles (talk) 08:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 10:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically on an outstandig high level, but the motif itself isn´t wowing me. It´s an ordinary American skyline--Milseburg (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, with apologies - I actually kind of agree with Milseburg, and that's why I hadn't voted yet: The dilemma is that this is a very high-quality panorama of what I find a pretty uninteresting scene. If only the more interesting, shorter buildings on the left side could be emphasized over the boring modern boxes in the center and right...And so, this is a notable achievement and a very useful picture, but I'm feeling it as a really good QI/VI, not an FP. However, I can understand perfectly why almost everyone is voting for a feature for this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI yes, for FP bridge is spoiling this shot. Should be more in or completely out. --Mile (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI certainly, and I appreciate your calling to our attention the lesser skylines of the Northeastern U.S. as you did with Jersey City. But this skyline, while it makes ample use of the evening light, goes for comprehensiveness at the expense of wow ... it takes care to show us the lower buildings of Harvard, but as a result leaves us feeling decidedly unbalanced when the taller buildings around MIT suddenly pop up on the right (Compare this)
I can't blame you for trying as all those boxy modern buildings don't give you too much to work with, but this wasn't it. Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 22:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 09:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:IAEA Experts at Fukushima (02813336).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2017 at 18:57:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry
Info created by Greg Webb / IAEA, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is certainly no time to pose, so quite good quality. High educational value, showing the working conditions, and the environment with the damaged building in the background. Please notice that this image is used in many places on the Internet. -- Yann (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Very good picture under very adverse and historically significant circumstances. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 06:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one has some bonus for ER. --Mile (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you mean "EV" as in Educational Value, "ER" usually means something else even if such facilities certainly were involved in the accident. --cart-Talk 10:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --cart-Talk 10:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't think this is anything special. The composition, framing and posing are all weak, nor is it clear where they are. This photo from the set is far superior IMO, clearly showing a control room of some facility, and some seriously flurorescent air filters! -- Colin (talk) 12:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. This to me looks like what a news outlet's photo editor would want from one of their photographers, but the conditions under which it was taken notwithstanding that does not make it an FP. If it were the iconic picture of the incident, yes maybe for historical value (it may be widely reproduced online, but this is the first time I've seen it) but since it isn't, I oppose. The one Colin points to is, indeed, better. Daniel Case (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel Case. --Karelj (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support KennyOMG (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. This is related to an important event, but it just shows the experts leaving - not at work. --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Uoaei1 – Lucas ^T 08:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 21:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Industry

File:Miniature pasted on cardboard. “Karim Khan Zand with the Ottoman Ambassador Vehbi Effendi”. Attributed to Abu’l Hasan Mustawfi Iran; 1775- Sahand Ace.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2017 at 13:19:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by Abu’l Hasan Mustawfi - uploaded and nominated by User:Sahand Ace -- Sahand Ace 13:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sahand Ace 13:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment Please fix the categories and the licensing on the file's page. --cart-Talk 17:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: I fixed it-- Sahand Ace 12:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This looks like a faithful representation of an artwork that needs restoration. I'm having trouble with the idea of supporting it for a feature because of the degree of damage that is restorable (unlike a ruin of a church or a sculpture of a figure from ancient Greece that no longer has arms or legs). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 21:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Münster, LVM, Skulptur -Körper und Seele- -- 2017 -- 6389.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2017 at 19:13:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 19:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not sure, but let's try it. It's just a detail of the sculpture, glass with air bubbles and Water droplets. -- XRay ^talk 19:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well, I like this piece of abstract photography. --cart-Talk 20:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Sadly I have no hard arguments against this, but my main thoughts were: 0. it doesn't speak to me as being a special photo on its own 1. It falls short on the value aspect (being a crop of a larger thing), 2. same with wow, 3. There is no clear composition, it looks just randomly cropped (to be fair, there can be thought put into it, it's just hard to show), 4. IMO it would be weird to feature a small part of a sculpture if there could be done much more with that sculpure put in the frame as a whole. – Lucas ^T 20:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but I'm missing the sculpture. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not clear subject --Ezarateesteban 00:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support To my eyes it is an artistic image. And I do appreciate this kind of photos quite a lot. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Johann and Cart --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't find it artistic. Charles (talk) 10:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid it isn't doing anything for me. The sculpture as a whole is interesting art already. I like this crop, though the top right is weak. -- Colin (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Were it not for that joint running through the middle, I would probably have joined cart in supporting it for its pleasant, ambient, abstract qualities à la a Cocteau Twins album cover. But that thick curved line ruins the abstraction for me. Daniel Case (talk)
Oppose I don't find it artistic. --Karelj (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 23:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 21:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Savanna hawk (Buteogallus meridionalis).JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2017 at 17:36:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info These hawks would normally fly off when perched just 1.5m off the ground, but our car acted as a hide. It is about 60cm (24") tall. Created by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support - I don't like the dull light much, but I do like the tough and good-looking hawk. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Mild Support here too.~~ Good-looking bird but I'm not wild about the background colors or the light. --cart-Talk 10:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Usually the wow-y photos grow on me as I look at them again after voting. Unfortunately, this one has not done so, rather the opposite so I'm moving to Neutral. Sorry. --cart-Talk 23:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Dull lighting and a man-made perch. I'm not wowed by this. lNeverCry 23:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 21:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Österreichischer Filmpreis 2017 photo call Egon Schiele Tod und Mädchen Valerie Pachner 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2017 at 15:13:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created, uploaded, nominated by Tsui -- Tsui (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tsui (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great portrait. Yann (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, seeing this photo at QIC was how I first came to notice your very good portraits, but the light in this and several of the other photos from that event is a bit unfortunate. The shadow around her left eye looks like she's got a black eye, so in the end I chose two other portraits. --cart-Talk 15:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shot too wide, and her right arm is making me feel this is bodybuilding shot. Could be a stop lower.--Mile (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC) p.S. Crop ?[reply]
Support Good, useful ~~bodybuilding shot~~. --A.Savin 15:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cart and Mile. lNeverCry 19:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per cart and Mile. If you needed to use the fast ISO to get this image I can understand, but do be aware that it's likely to come with a lot of noise and thus not make it as an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the discussion page, if anyone is interested. --Tsui (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think this photo has character. And is this really noisy? If you look at the photo at full size, you can see the peach fuzz around her lips - that's a very high degree of closeup! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can see that detail on the face, but the bokeh is noisier than some of the other portraits from this event taken under the same conditions. Daniel Case (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the quality of the photo is certainly great, I totally agree about that. I think that if the photographer had been able to choose the light, it would have been just as good. Sadly some production company made that setting. --cart-Talk 10:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ralf Roleček 22:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 21:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hackerbrücke Munich 2014 03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2017 at 13:15:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info Picture from WLM 2015, c/u/n by me. — Julian H.^✈ 13:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 13:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Excellent picture, and I'm tempted to support it weakly at the moment, but it bugs me that the right crop cuts into a mast. I assume there's no way to add the remainder of the mast to the picture? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a building that starts exactly at the current crop, in-between the tracks, unfortunately. Since that's basically black, it really ruins that edge. — Julian H.^✈ 14:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julian, I uploaded a crop and nominated it as an alternative. I can't quite follow your explanation with the "ruined edge" and how you would feel about cropping. I can't see any problem with my crop (if you do, would you mind explaining it more?). Feel free to change my crop or remove the "Alternative" nomination below altogether if you have a better solution or you want to leave the image as it is. Sorry for creating the alternative without asking first, I really like the image. – Lucas ^T 18:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support well done! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 06:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 22:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative, cropped on the right[edit]

Info Picture from WLM 2015, created by Julian Herzog, uploaded and nominated by Lucasbosch – Lucasbosch ^T 17:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I cropped this on the right per Ikan Kekek's suggestion. I like it better this way, too. – Lucas ^T 17:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas, although I was about to suggest this crop myself to Julian, it would have been more polite to let him do the crop himself and suggest an alt. We had this mess of well-meaning alterations of photos a while back and it quickly turned into quite a mess with numerous alternatives in the end. Please be a bit patitent and make suggestion to the nominator instead. This said, I Support such a crop, but it would have felt better if it had been made by Julian. --cart-Talk 18:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

cart, I'm sorry for jumping into action as quickly, I agree I should have waited a bit. I have pinged Julian above about my crop and what he meant in his reply. – Lucas ^T 19:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I do see the benefits of this version. I uploaded a file from the original over your upload to preserve the quality. — Julian H.^✈ 19:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support lNeverCry 19:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--XRay ^talk 19:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 19:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support also fine! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, editing thoughts. Julian, I see a line of orange pixels at the top that looks like it doesn't belong there, you can find them by looking at the top most pixels. Also, are these blurred white spots in the sky OOF stars? If not, maybe clone these out as well. – Lucas ^T 20:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think I fixed those issues. The bright spots were probably flies lit by street lights, stars would have to be in focus. Not sure what was going on with the red line, it doesn't even show up in Lightroom, only in the export. — Julian H.^✈ 21:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julian, I know you are concerned with quality: I have found visible JPG compression artifacts around roof antennas, see my note. – Lucas ^T 22:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not jpeg artifacts, that's just noise. Fixed though. — Julian H.^✈ 08:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Martin--Milseburg (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support this version. Daniel Case (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Still not perfect, as the extreme right side is notably glary, but that's a small detail and the photo as a whole is quite good and deserves a feature, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 04:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 06:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better one. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 22:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas ^T 09:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Hackerbrücke Munich 2014 03 cropped.jpg

File:Salisbury Cathedral Lady Chapel 1, Wiltshire, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2017 at 07:16:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info The Trinity Chapel (Lady Chapel) of Salisbury Cathedral in Wiltshire, England. There's also a closer view which is already featured in the English Wikipedia but I think this wider view here is better. Created and uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Code --Code (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Code (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's quite interesting with all the mixing of styles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cute. Strange and sensual (sorry, I'm of other culture) church IMO. Interesting--Lmbuga (talk) 12:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ezarateesteban 14:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 23:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 17:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 21:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Code (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Airbus A350-941 F-WWCF MSN002 ILA Berlin 2016 17.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2017 at 13:59:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
Info c/u/n — Julian H.^✈ 13:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 13:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ezarateesteban 14:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Many of airplane photos are rather boring, but this one certainly not. Really good timing, composition, and light. --A.Savin 14:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per A.Savin: I'm not easily wowed by (pictures of) airliners, but this one's just excellent. Looks like a landing rather than a take-off to me? Might want to add that to the description … --El Grafo (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I added the fact that it's a takeoff to the description. — Julian H.^✈ 18:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per others. --Code (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok, this picture has a excellent quality --The Photographer 21:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lucas ^T 22:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oh yes! --cart-Talk 23:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a very attractive picture WClarke 23:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 23:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent sharp focus to the aeroplane --Michielverbeek (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot! --Gyrostat (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 17:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I have to agree with the others. This is a great shot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 21:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well done technically --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 08:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent focus to main object --Michielverbeek (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 07:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 29 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ezarateesteban 21:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Archon apollinus - False apollo, Adana 2017-02-11 01-3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2017 at 08:58:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info created & uploaded by Zeynel Cebeci - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice butterfly, great details, good, restful composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 09:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not strongly against, but there isn't great detail, perhaps over-denoised? Charles (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - They look like great details to me, but you're an expert on butterflies and butterfly photography and I'm not. Zeynel, do you have a comment about this? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Colin (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support While I'm not an expert on butterflies, I think the delicate composition and colors are exquisite. --cart-Talk 13:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support And 7... --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely neutral tones. Daniel Case (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wrong color temperature; These are not these natural colors. Easy to correct --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 10:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Catedral de la Dormición de la Madre de Dios, Varna, Bulgaria, 2016-05-27, DD 109-111 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2017 at 22:28:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Dormition of the Theotokos Cathedral, Varna, Bulgaria. The temple is the largest and most famous Bulgarian Orthodox cathedral in the Bulgarian Black Sea port city of Varna, and the second largest in Bulgaria (after cathedral Alexander Nevski in Sofia). Officially opened in 1886, it's the residence of the bishopric of Varna and Preslav and one of the symbols of Varna. All by me, Poc o² 22:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 22:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 23:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent and beautiful. Btw, it's interesting that you keep referring to churches as temples - which strikes me as rather unusual (due to major theological differences between these two terms). Afaik only the Spanish language uses "templo" in a Christian context. Well, rather off-topic and of no further importance here, just an observation of mine... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know much Magyar, but I do recall that the Magyar word for church is "templom". So that's at least one more language.-- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added a note, it's tilt in CW direction --The Photographer 10:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Photographer: I've uploaded a new version to improve the symmetry --Poc o² 21:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks, ok now --The Photographer 10:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose You will have to correct colors and CA (yellow and purple on windows). HDR is killing nice fresco colors of church. I dont see what are HDR exsposures. Composition isnt lucky, main objects to focus is probably line between two columns, and Jesus is covered with wire. --Mile (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid that for me the wires and lights are just too intrusive for FP. And Mile's "Jesus is covered with wire" is the worst of it. -- Colin (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sahand Ace 12:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Jesus won't approve of this. – Lucas ^T 17:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ok, this is one of the top three most bizarre comments I've seen here!

--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support As this wire is installed horizontally, there is no chance to avoid it without loosing symmetry. Therefore I would trust in Jesus' mercy. --PtrQs (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info Here is what you got in less than a minute of work link --Mile (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus wouldn't still be happy :) --Poc o² 19:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- He might, if you will push harder. --Mile (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ceiling light fixture in Hofstatt Mall, Munich, February 2017.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2017 at 13:53:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects#Lamps
Info Ceiling light fixture in Hofstatt Mall, Munich; all by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is great to look at. Thanks for noticing it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very wow-y subject! There is some slight purple (almost blue) fringing in some places that could be removed, but that's just me being picky. I also think Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Lamps would be more appropriate. --cart-Talk 23:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per Ikan; couldn't help noting that it made me think of File:Lamps EM Belysning Viborg Denmark 2016-12-30-.jpg post by Slaunger several weeks back. WClarke 23:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 23:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I actually like this much more than Slaunger's because of the unity of form of the lights, which contrasts nicely with their very different perspectives and material. As Ikan notes, it's actually quite calming to look at. There are some blown areas, but this is forgivable. Daniel Case (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 21:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 10:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Famagusta 01-2017 img10 Carmelite Church.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2017 at 13:47:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info All by A.Savin.
Support --A.Savin 13:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support what a lighting! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martin. Poetic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, great lighting. Charles (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per others. --Code (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lucas ^T 22:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exquisite! --cart-Talk 23:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the contrast of warm, lit rock and darkening sky. Daniel Case (talk) 07:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 10:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lotje 14:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 17:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 21:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 10:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2017 at 08:05:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created by User:deepugn - uploaded by User:deepugn - nominated by User:deepugn -- Deepugn (talk) 08:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Beautiful lotus, but for me, the rough bokeh spoils the picture, overall. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Juan Carlos Lentijo & Ikuo Izawain (02813332).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2017 at 15:31:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry
Info created by Greg Webb / IAEA, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would not have thought to nominate this one, but since 2 persons suggested it... -- Yann (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't find the image exciting or special on its own, disregarding the situation in history. I don't see this fit as a FP. Obscured workers, boring lighting, reflections on the visors. – Lucas ^T 17:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Lucas. --Karelj (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support since I'm one of the two people who yapped about it below. I do very much like the contrast between the bland tones of the lab and the bright yellow and hot pink of the hats and masks. Daniel Case (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I supported the other one because the people are shown in the midst of visible damage. This could be any control room anywhere. lNeverCry 23:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While the other pic show the people in context, this one is just an almost amusing not too good photo of people in colorful protective gear. That sort of counteracts the seriousness of the situation. Judging this as any photo of folks in a control room, it is a bad composition with a partial pink blob and yellow helmet on one side and the rest of the image cropped at random. --cart-Talk 23:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Might be a significant picture, but not an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree the magenta blob on the bottom right is unfortunate, but cropping that out would lose the guy on the right. Wrt "This could be any control room anywhere", well there aren't many control rooms in the world where you need to wear full body protective gear and an IAEA badge. So I think this could easily well illustrate any article written about the accident. -- Colin (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That seems like a good argument for some kind of VI (not sure what the precise scope would be). Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Procession during Easter Friday in Santa Ana Guanajuato.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2017 at 18:55:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good and unique photograph of people, which I like to see on Commons. I personally like it in black and white; seeing the color version would ruin the photograph for me. In addition to that, though others may disagree, I like the grain because it seems to makes it feel more raw or gritty. The higher ISO (1600) used is also more unique when compared to other featured pictures, and in this case is used well. WClarke 19:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Unique image, however, strong noise --The Photographer 20:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Technical perfection is not always necessary nor needed. Photography is a language in itself, and as in language, correct grammar is not always necessary to convey a message. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not technical perfection, all the images should be valued coldly without taking circumstantial factors. Using a good camera and lens is important, for example. You can not take a photo with a compact camera and say it is the best quality the camera can do. Sadly, everyone here is judged equally. And I say sadly because there are countries where FP will never come because it is impossible for their citizens to buy a DSLR or a good compact camera. In your case, you use a DSLR, however, with a technique that is possible to improve, in my humble opinion (My vote is not {{o}} how you can see). --The Photographer 12:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correction @The Photographer: Since you say that you are not voting against the photo, I have put your "o" in a nowiki code. Otherwise the BOT will read it as an oppose vote and that will screw things up. Hope you don't mind. --cart-Talk 18:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, ok, it was a mistake --The Photographer 18:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree with WClarke on this one. It is such a strong photo that the graininess lends an even more documentary quality to it and matches the darkness in the photo. --cart-Talk 23:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 23:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this a contemporary image converted to B/W? Then I've to agree with The Photographer, the noise is too high for FP Poc o² 13:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

discussion about B&W and noise

Comment Well, I guess 2015 can be considered contemporary... But I strongly disagree that noise is too high for FP. First of all, nowhere in the book says that noise cannot be present in an image, or that it is a requirement for FP. Noise is the result of several factors, one of them being high ISO. High ISO is the result of light conditions, and you either take the image with correct exposure in natural light, which in this case lent itself to the overall aspect, or you take it with flash and eliminate the dramatic contrast, or you don´t take the picture at all. As I said above, photography is a language, and as such, it has wide latitude as a form of expression. In this case, noise is a result of light conditions that necessitated the use of high ISO. I have always, and always will disagree with the pixel counters in this forum that put superficial form over depth. Imagine if Robert Capa #REDIRECT[[16]] were to upload his famous image #REDIRECT[[17]] to this forum, or if someone did it for him; under common practices here the image would never make it! Grainy, soft, cut off, not large enough, out of focus, etc., etc. Human events are phenomenological in nature, they flow like a river, never repeat themselves, and good photography, even if it lacks technical perfection, captures the essence of the phenomena regardless of technical perfection. What is a beautiful flower without aroma? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Your point is well taken, and technical perfection is certainly not needed, but what would the drawback of just a bit of noise reduction be? Would it adversely affect the picture in some way? Please explain because I'm not so knowledgeable about such things. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that would happen if you applied NR on this level of graininess, is that you would loose all detail in the veils, hair and eyes on the women in the photo. You would also loose the documentary feel and the photo would look strange with all that smoothness. --cart-Talk 19:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the grain is necessary for the documentary-feeling to it, along with making it more somber and serious. This same effect seems to be done more commonly in photojournalism, as can be seen in the winners of the World Press Photo of the Year in both 2016 and 2009. The photograph that won in 2016 had an ISO of 6400, which brought significant grain, though turned out with great results. It seems that in digital photography grain and noise are often automatically looked down upon, and any potential artistic effect is overlooked. There is a difference between careless noise in a photograph, and noise in a photograph to achieve a dramatic effect. And IMO the latter is the case here. Thanks. WClarke 20:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also see these two photos also from World Press Photo that are both recent and use a similar effect: 2016 and 2017. Thanks. WClarke 20:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek, cart-Talk and WClarke give great answers, observations. Thank you guys for them! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support E-x-c-e-l-l-e-n-t! Once again Tomas shows us what peoples photography is really about. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks Slaunger!!! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nicely executed in B/W. You get a feel -- Dey.sandip (talk) 06:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very unusual for a FP - and therefore a very good candidate :-) It is as if it is taken out a a weird, scary movies ..... Excellent. --Pugilist (talk) 07:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ultimately, I like it, too. Just don't look at it at full size, because you get less, rather than more information that way. But it's less important to me to look at details of the corn ears (I believe they are) than to see the image at the size that fills my laptop screen. Very cinematic image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 10:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Flagellum base diagram en.svg (delist), not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 05:43:22

Info The accuracy has been disputed since 2012 (see discussion at talk), and while I'm not familiar enough with the subject to offer an informed opinion about the dispute, we shouldn't have something on the featured list if it has a longstanding accuracy dispute. (Original nomination)
Delist -- Nyttend (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom. lNeverCry 06:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nominator. --Cayambe (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom and User:Leprof 7272's remark on the file's talk page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nominator -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ezarateesteban 12:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Industrilandskapet Norrköping February 2017.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 09:27:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info The river Motala ström and the historic industrial district (known as Industrilandskapet) in Norrköping, Sweden. Industrilandskapet is a well-preserved industrial area, the industrial development started in the 17th century and carried on through to the middle of the 20th century, and a number of woollen spinning mills and cotton factories were established.
Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can't help thinking that this would have been better in color, the buildings are not interesting enough for a BW conversion. --cart-Talk 21:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild support I too wonder what a color version would look like, but in grayscale I'm just blown away by the perspective. Daniel Case (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 06:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive view. I think the b/w conversion works well in this case although I'm also curious how the coloured version looks like. --Code (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd be interested to see a color version, but in my case, I think it's an idle curiosity, as I'm happy to accept the photo as is. I think using black & white helps accentuate the industrial character of the buildings and the industrial use of the watercourse. And what makes the photo special to me is the long depth of field looking down the watercourse and the plunging reflections of every structure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 17:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The triumph of french painting The apotheosis of Poussin,Le Sueur and Le Brune - Louvre.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 08:55:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Neutral Excellent painting art work, however, the quality of this shot doesn't honor to the painting. Satured colors that result in too yellow temperature, lack of details (Have you tried build it from the RAW? and not use just the camera internal building). ~~Also extreme lens distortion in corners, a common problem already commented an others nominations.~~ Btw, Remember that it's only MHO --The Photographer 11:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I sincerely don't understand what you mean for "MHO". --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On colors and the details even don't answer because it is personal matter, on "distortions" I'll note that it is a roof is curved there some problems to straighten it, like this[18]. Thank you --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ There are someone's fingers near the right lower corner --PtrQs (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Oppose~~ per PtrQs --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DonePtrQs,Martin Falbisoner I honestly do not ever put an opposition to something that is easily solved, however, each one has its own way. Thanks --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that; I'm also fine with the tighter crop. Of course I'll Support now --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my intervention, but as those ghostly fingers were still fumbling at this QI, I couldn't ignore them Support --PtrQs (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment PtrQs i don't said that you must ignore,simply ask to resolve and not oppose. Thanks --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 06:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Weld Jallaba Show 06.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 11:00:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by IssamBarhoumi (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC) - uploaded by IssamBarhoumi (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC) - nominated by IssamBarhoumi -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Amazing that you have been able to get his face sharp in all that whirling! He looks like a djinn straight out of One Thousand and One Nights, but there is a slight hint of "red eye", could you please correct that? A slight crop might also be better, see note. --cart-Talk 11:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment dear cart-Talk a funny comparaison :) i ll do my nest to remove that --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll support this as soon as eyes and crop are fixed. --cart-Talk 15:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with cart. This would be a good example of "rear-curtain sync" in the Flash synchronization article on WP. -- Colin (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Commentdear Colin (talk thank you I ll do my best to remove that --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Waiting on the eyes to be fixed. Daniel Case (talk) 03:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

dear cart-Talk , dear Colin (talk and dear Daniel Case (talk I did it have a look please --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you IssamBarhoumi for fixing the eyes but there is still too much dark space above the dancer's head for my taste. It needs to be cropped. --cart-Talk 10:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

dear cart-Talk done have a look please --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's fine now. These things should have been taken care of at QIC, but things do get missed there from time to time. --cart-Talk 17:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very interesting: You captured motion in a still photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice idea, but the face is not sharp enough - and the whites of the eyes are still red. Charles (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017 Smog nad Nową Rudą.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 15:30:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Good documentation of an unnatural phenomenon, but not so beautiful, in my opinion. I think that "Nowa Ruda, view with smog" might be a good scope for a VI nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: I changed category. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Actually, it is a natural phenomenon—see temperature inversion. I've seen it often in winter in similar situations, usually a bluish haze over some ski village where a lot of fireplaces are being used. This looks to me almost like coal was being burned in a lot of the village? Daniel Case (talk) 06:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inversions are a natural phenomenon, but smog is not. Now, if this were a picture of vog (volcanic fog) over the Big Island of Hawaii, that would be a different story. Of course that's a side point. You and the others are wowed by the picture, and that's what counts most. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: It's fair to say that the smog is an unnatural phenomenon resulting from the naturally occurring inversion layer. Whatever. You're right that the only thing the matters is that we like or don't like the image. Daniel Case (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support lNeverCry 06:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 17:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 22:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 01:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Comercio en la plaza del 9 de abril de 1947, Tánger, Marruecos, 2015-12-11, DD 77.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 19:16:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info Grocery and cosmetics shop in the April 9th 1947 Square, better known as Grand Socco, Tangier, Morocco. All by me, Poc o² 19:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 19:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wasn't wowed until I opened this at full size and smelled the spices and the musty old wood in the shop. :) --cart-Talk 22:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 06:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice documentary work --The Photographer 10:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor lighting and composition - just look at the red thing in the foreground. Charles (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per cart and The Photographer. Daniel Case (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 02:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles, poor light conditions. No FP for me. --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Barely Oppose - I'm really torn because this is a good portrait of a shopkeeper at his store, and the light conditions are what they are and give the photo a realism I can accept. But what really distracts me is precisely the red plastic thing in front. It spoils the symmetry of the spice bins. In the end, as much as I like this photo, when I think about whether it's really one of the best photos on the site, I reluctantly demur. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So, when a photographer barges into a store in Tangier, he should bring his own lighting equipment and ask the owner to rearrange the items in the shop so that the photo will be more aesthetically pleasing for a bunch of picky westerners, rather than documentary? --cart-Talk 13:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, but if you were to barge into a store and take a snap-shot, don't expect to become an FP. 11:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Support - High-quality work with plenty of illustrative value. One little plastic device at the edge of the frame can't ruin the whole thing. Real life, alas, isn't always tidy or "symmetrical." –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 21:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 01:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Haßberge Scheune 5153908.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 19:31:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany
Info created by Ermell - uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some weeks ago on QI. I like this colourful image and I hope that six or seven more persons like it, too... --Basotxerri (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice! --cart-Talk 21:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 06:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The town where I come 90 % of the houses look like this, I'm only explaining why it's not wow for me. --The Photographer 10:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Most of the building is hidden and if that was intentional, the idea doesn't work for me. Charles (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was the "yin and yang" pattern of the green and yellow around the building that struck me as significant. This is the sort of photo where you can choose to see the center or the surroundings. --cart-Talk 12:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good image! Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - With blocks of almost solid color, I don't find that this picture is really that rewarding to move my eye around (you could think of it this way: it lacks the linear arabesque that I like to see in 2D static visual art, which gives it a feeling of dynamism). That said, if the yellow flowers were only beyond the house, I think the pure visual impact of that division would cause the photo to merit a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 21:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 01:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Montes de Vitoria - Quercus ilex 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 19:12:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Spain
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Request Is it possible to erase that little twig looming in on the left border? Otherwise a not very sharp, but beautiful picture. --PtrQs (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done I should have seen this, sorry. Thank you! --Basotxerri (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PtrQs (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful lighting and composition. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 06:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice one. --Code (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice image, though I would crop 15% off the bottom and 5% off the top. Charles (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like this? 200px --Basotxerri (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer it, Thanks. Charles (talk) 10:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Charles, I've compared both version again and think you're right, your crop suggestion looks more interesting. Thanks for the advice. Anyway, like this nomination has almost ended, I think it doesn't make sense to restart it again. --Basotxerri (talk) 07:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tree against landscape ... doesn't always work as well as we'd like to think when taking the picture, but this time it does. Daniel Case (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 21:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 01:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Grey Fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), portrait.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 22:16:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by California Department of Water Resources, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The best portrait we have of this species, and cute. -- Yann (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 00:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It's a great shot that would be hard to replicate, and caught me eye more than most animal photography does. Despite this, there is a large amount of noise present, though this picture is from 1993 and was taken with film. Because of this I'll let the noise slide, though a better digital reproduction/conversion probably could have been done. Thanks. WClarke 03:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm tempted to vote against, as I consider it a historical image that needs better digital editing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @WClarke and Ikan Kekek: I did slide digitization myself, and I don't think one could do better than this. Now if someone want to try digital editing, please do. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no experienced digital restorer. However, there are some stray marks on the photo, including a bright line above the fox's head that looks like a scratch on the photo's surface. There are also what look like stray dark spots. I'm feeling this more as a VI than an FP, though I note that the VI nomination is so far drawing opposition. I may look at that nomination more. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that for a VI, a picture of the whole animal is better, while a portrait has more wow effect. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that the whole animal is needed for a VI of the animal. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've done a very light digital restoration of the photo, mostly reduced the color noise, filled in the dark spots I could find and sharpened it very lightly. The "bright line" stays though since it is just one of the very long vibrissae in the eye region of the fox. Keep or rollback as you please, Yann. --cart-Talk 12:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot! Yann (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well images are usually rejected here for noise levels a fraction of this. Is there a reason why this should be an exception just because it was taken years ago? I don't consider it a historical image. Charles (talk) 12:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While doing the restoration, I finally figured out what the flesh-colored thing at the bottom of the pic was. At first I thought it might be a wound, a cub licking or something, now I see that it is the thumb nail of someone holding the fox. In a photo like this, it's a no-no for FP IMO. I also sort of agree with Charles about the noise, even if this is "the best we've got". --cart-Talk 13:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes, too bad. But seriously, the complains about the noise are not very serious... Yann (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Yann (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 20:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Highlight Towers Munich, February 2017, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 06:58:56 (UTC)

Cyan
Purple
Blue

Info Highlight Towers in Munich is a twin tower office skyscraper complex completed in 2004. It was planned by Murphy/Jahn and - involuntarily - helped foster the strongly developed anti-highrise-stance in Munich's populace. As suggested by Ikan, I'd like to nominate a set of three pictures showing the colorful LED illumination of its exterior. Btw., I used to work in one of the towers 10 years ago. All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, solely on the basis that the three are too similar in my opinion to all be FP, while the base image might be FP worthy. It took me a second to see the illumination differences. As the color is only a narrow strip in the overal image, it is technically colorful, but not in the most impactful way. The sky and the rest of the building is dominating here. An example of a truly colorful building would be Munich's Allianz Arena, were a set nomination showing off the colors would make much more sense, just by the total area of color occupying the image. – Lucas ^T 07:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I guess you're right, Lucas. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 20:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:TS-11 SPARK Aerobatic team White-Red Sparks Danish Air Show 2014-06-22.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2017 at 22:12:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air_transport
Info Personally, I like the composition, light, and colors on this one taken a beautiful summer morning as the bi-annual Danish Air Show 2014 was about to begin. The pose of the pilot with one shoe tip towards the ground showing a self-confident pilot, probably proud to be on his countrys show team (this is the White-Red Sparks from the Polish Air Force), the other pilots and crew discussing the events to come. There is a tranquility before action mood to the scenary, in sharp contrast to the noise level, which was very high as all the aircraft had their jet engines on. Created, uploaded and nominated by Slaunger. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Slaunger (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the composition, but there's too much posterization on the planes. Daniel Case (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really cool photo. Can't see any posterization though. What I can see are shadows and reflections on some planes from the adjacent planes. There are also discolorations from fuel, oils, overheating, repairs with mismatched paintjob and everything that comes with maintaining planes like these. Sure, the colors can look blotchy when you see the planes on the ground, but who cares, it doesn't matter when they are up in the sky doing their thing. :) I just wonder if it is possible to get rid of that little round thing on the tarmac far right in the photo? --cart-Talk 00:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - It strikes me that between the shallow DoF and the heat distortion from the hot tarmac, almost nothing is sharp or in focus. I agree with the nominator that the standing pilot's pose is a compelling element, but he's so blurry that he doesn't really serve as any sort of main subject, which is what I would have liked to see. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Juliancolton, unfortunately --El Grafo (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for reviewing this. I follow you points. Regarding the posterization I would have liked to re-process it from raw, but it appears I have lost the raw file. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 20:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:1 Singaporeskyline9g.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2017 at 23:01:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created and uploaded by Chensiyuan, nominated by Yann (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Special place, light well managed. -- Yann (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Impressive indeed but there's some weirdness going on in the sky, seems like color banding or maybe stitch lines? It's very much visible and I doubt could be fixed without starting over from the raw files. It's also leaning to the left ever so slightly but visibly. KennyOMG (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yeah, I was going to comment about the strange shapes in the sky and water from stitching problems. Those do have to be fixed before this photo could be featured. Chensiyuan, do you have the time to fix those problems in the next week or so? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on first sight it's great - oh no, sorry: It's a terrific view, - but even if you can tame your stitching software, only some of the buildings are sharp, others not at all. --PtrQs (talk) 01:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with others. It needs restitched. Perhaps also Smartblend to hide any stitching issues better. Also, please don't use AdobeRGB for the web; use sRGB. -- Colin (talk) 07:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

digression - I thought only people from the Pittsburgh area used the "needs +-ed" construction ("the car needs washed" [or "warshed"]; "that bug needs killed"). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

No Ikan, we do in Scotland too. Charles (talk)

@Charlesjsharp: A lot of Pittsburgh/Western Pennsylvania's original European settlers were Scots-Irish; that probably explains that. In rural areas you still hear older people talking about how they might need to "red up" the house before company comes, which is also Scots-Irish. However, I don't know if "yins" as the second-person plural is something you'd hear in Scotland (you will in Pittsburgh). Daniel Case (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional support on fixing whatever errors there are. Daniel Case (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will renominate it if/when corrected. Yann (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 20:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Funchal Carros do Monte 2016 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2017 at 17:12:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Karelj
Support -- Karelj (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a nice idea but execution is lacking in my opinion. I feel the context is missing because the vehicle the photographer is sitting on is not in the frame, so we as the viewers are sort of lost where we are here. Secondly, the three men closest are all blurred, but it doesn't look good IMO because the ground is not blurred enough to suggest any significant speed, so it looks (!) like camera shake blur. Composition is also not the best with the two men left and right cut off, although the overal symmetry is nice. The scene has potential, a wider angle lens would have helped a lot here. Also, there are noticeable CAs on the white clothes and the rope. – Lucas ^T 19:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think Lucas said most of it, there are also the leaning verticals and the overexposed areas on the white clothes. The men pulling are also in the zones of a photo where focus tends to be less good than in the middle of the pic. --cart-Talk 20:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 20:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Milseburg (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 06:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I withdraw my nomination.--Karelj (talk) 13:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ezarateesteban 11:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jackson's hornbill (Tockus jacksoni) male head.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2017 at 09:48:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info This noisy hornbill can only be found in the North East corner of Uganda and the North West corner of Kenya. All created by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose over-processed maybe trying remove background noise resulting in a dropshadow effect in the beak border (I added a note) IMHO and maybe I'm wrong, you applied a noise reduction in background dividing in layers the bird and the background for apply a Gaussian blur in the background, however, in the low layer (a copy of the front layer) there is the bird that now is showed like a dropshadow in the current image. My suggestion is apply a simply noise reduction in the background but not dividing in layers. Also too space on image top. BTW It's a beautiful image and remember me another nomination --The Photographer 11:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would prefer to see nature/wildlife photos not photoshopped to blur the background. It is very hard to do convincingly. The edges are a bit obvious. -- Colin (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Colin, it could be allowed, however, using a better technique. IMHO. Take a look to for example. The problem come when you are changing colors or you are using some layer denoise technique and not a specialized denoise tool like neat image. --The Photographer 14:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This looks more than just denoising. More like trying to increase the background bokeh blur. -- Colin (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: Well it was exactly what I was telling you, please, take a look to the image source too. I removed it because it was distracting, however, now I don't know if it's acceptable. What do you think?. Thanks --The Photographer 17:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Agree with the above, has the look of one of those "artistic" Photoshop filters which is never a good thing. Detail on the bird is nice though. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Aside from the badly executed blurring/whatever already mentioned, I would have liked to see a bit more of the bird's neck. Now it looks as if it is striving to keep its head above the bottom line of the photo. With such a heavy beak, almost (vertical) centering the eye is not enough, the centre of gravity of the subject is too low. Sharpness otherwise as great as we've come to expect from Sharp Photo. --cart-Talk 15:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Badly executed blurring. edit: No with the new versions uploaded, I come to wonder what caused the drop shadow that partly caused all the oppose votes. – Lucas ^T 19:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Milseburg (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @The Photographer, Colin, Juliancolton, Lucasbosch, and W.carter: @Milseburg and INeverCry: I never mind constructive criticism, and there is clearly a drop shadow which could be removed by reprocessing. I may be sensitive, but I do resent all these incorrect assumptions about my processing and your suggestions of blurring. As Commons does not allow a direct upload of the .CR2 file from my camera, I have uploaded the RAW file saved as a .jpg with absolutely no processing. Do please have a look. Charles (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Charles, thanks for uploading that unprocessed file for comparison. Please be assured that I never meant to personally criticize your editing techniques. I did believe that some kind of extensive manipulation had been done to produce the hazy borders, but I see now that was not the case. Taking a closer look, it's a similar effect to what I've noticed on my own relatively high-ISO images from older crop-sensor cameras. The end result is the same, though, and I'm very much in agreement with Cart's comments about the composition. Even if it isn't quite what we look for in an FP, it's still a remarkable image. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed from The Photographer's comments on Gaussian blur that you'd applied a very strong blur. Certainly the margin between the bird feathers and the background was rough and demonstrated detail the background did not have at all -- but it seems this was just noise. So while you haven't blurred it to increase the background bokeh blur, you've certainly blurred it far beyond the necessary for noise reduction. To the point where the background got posterised and artificially plastic looking, and the bird looked crudely Photoshopped onto it. I'm afraid this just adds further to my complaint about reviewers who pixel peep -- it not only causes people to downsize unnecessarily, or to leave, but also to clumsily blur images when there was in fact nothing much wrong with the noise levels. The degree of noise in your "direct from raw" would probably diminish if you applied a sharpening mask to the default sharpening used by Lightroom or ACR. Then only a smidgen of luminance NR might help. Really, we are ruining perfectly good pictures in order to satisfy people who look at pixels rather than pictures. Fullscreen on a 220dpi monitor, the noise here is barely visible, certainly not troublesome, and the image wonderfully sharp. I would like us to reach a point where the amount of noise here, on a 20MP image raised no oppose votes at all, much like a small degree of CA or a couple of barely visible dust spots shouldn't be a reason to oppose. -- Colin (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Colin that there is nothing wrong with the background in the "straight from RAW photo". That looks natural and perfectly fine no need for any extra work. There is no strange shadow around the beak either. Still not enough neck on the bird for my taste though. ;) Since I've learned more about post-processing after hanging out here at FPC, I don't go as heavy on the NR as before. Most NR on backgrounds can ruin the authentic feel of a photo. --cart-Talk 23:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your courage to upload the original photo and accept our criticism with maturity. I uploaded a version applied noise reduction, however, I rollbacked myself --The Photographer 23:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the others on the amount of noise in the raw file - very minor and no bar to a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:12, 23 February 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: 6 opposes already in the first day - not much chance of this nomination succeeding

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.

lNeverCry 21:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

@INeverCry: I think you may have applied fpx too hastily and not in accordance with the FPC rules. You may have been influenced by the 'herd instinct' votes and you have not given me the opportunity to upload a new version. Charles (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, actually, I think it would be best if you closed/withdrew this nom and started a new one of the new version of the photo. You know with the "/2" thing you can read about on the COM:FPC right above the nomination box. That way you can start with a clean slate and don't have to ping everybody, etc. --cart-Talk 11:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. People can then oppose on the basis of the tight crop etc. if they want. Anyone volunteering to process my RAW file (which I can mail)?

I withdraw my nomination Charles (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 20:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Met rijp bedekte katjes van een els (Alnus) 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2017 at 06:20:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants # Family Betulaceae.
Info With hoarfrost covered catkins of alder (Alnus). All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment another great example of highly reduced, modern Dutch still lifes! :-) I'd suggest to adapt the white balance to the wintery scenery though - here it appears much too warm. An ice-cold blueish hue could further underline the intended mood, imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support thanks! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The grayish white appearance of the photo is sufficiently frosty for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think it would be FPC sharpness ~~even if white balance/tone sorted~~. -- Charlesjsharp 09:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Composition isn't wowing me. Agree the light looks too warm. -- Colin (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I don't mind the WB, but composition is somewhat lacking. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. WB. correction Thank you.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin and Julian regarding the composition. lNeverCry 20:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative, another version[edit]

Info With hoarfrost covered catkins of alder (Alnus).--Famberhorst (talk) 05:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan above. Daniel Case (talk) 06:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yes, I like this one, too, but I'm not sure why the people who don't support the other version would support this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(By the way, English word order would be "Catkins of alder (Alnus) covered with hoarfrost". English may be at base a Germanic language, but our grammar is very different from German, Dutch, and I suppose Frisian.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support also ok! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't find it special enough for FP. The subject is centered in the frame and it provides no wow for me. It's a beautiful sight in nature but the photograph is not impactful IMO. – Lucas ^T 09:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Still per Colin and Julian. Unexciting composition. lNeverCry 17:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 20:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sish Mahal, Jodhpur Fort.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2017 at 05:49:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
Info all by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Below the level of sharpness we typically expect of interior FPs. Overall I think the lighting is unbalanced; the bottom is a bit too dark for the composition to work in my mind. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, essentially per KoH. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 08:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per KoH. Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 22 February 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: as per above comments, also incomplete nomination. Yann (talk) 10:40, 24 February 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.

I withdraw my nomination

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 20:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lanchonete frente da praça da Sé, São Paulo, Brasil.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 12:42:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info All by -- The Photographer 12:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Request although the pillar in the left is vertical, I feel a disturbing CCW tilt in this pic. Can this be fixed? --PtrQs (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too busy, lacks clear main subject. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice idea, but framing the photo with the menu and the green fruits is not doing the photo any favors, shielding the viewer from the shop. It would have been better if you had taken one step further in and shot just the area with the chairs around the counter. --cart-Talk 18:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cart. lNeverCry 07:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support to me the framing works well.--Ralf Roleček 21:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposes. To me, a classic example of a picture that saw a lot to do and tried to do it all. Daniel Case (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the comments and votes. I see that the problem is the quantity of distracting elements and the blurred coconuts --The Photographer 14:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 20:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brown-cheeked-fulvetta-from-kottayam-kerala.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 10:32:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by deepugn - uploaded by deepugn - nominated by User:deepugn -- Deepugn (talk) 10:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is not a FP, sorry, and to me it isn't an QI, either. The lighting is not good, the head is in shadow. Sharpness overall is acceptable but in the head below the bar, sorry. Poc o² 10:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Picture taken early morning, actual lighting, got the feather details sharp so thought of nominating, is there a requirement that any particular parts should be sharp for birds for being nominated to be FP, i meant like head as mentioned in previous comment? Deepugn (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Poco. Sometimes, people have gotten away with the tail being unsharp, but not the head, and you should sign your post. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thank you, wanted to get the feedback, i hope you agreed with the lighting comment also. Deepugn (talk) 11:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want feedback, you should ask for that at Commons:Photography critiques or submit your photos to COM:QIC first where you will get that. FPC is for the finished photos, even if some things are changed here during discussions. When you present a photo here, it should already be as good as you can possibly get it. And as Ikan said; please sign your posts. --cart-Talk 11:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, i never knew about the critiques thing, think that will be a good place for my need. Deepugn (talk) 11:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 07:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. This had possibilities—the colors are nice, the light is appropriately soft—but the pose complicated things, and unfortunately that includes the DoF, as noted. Daniel Case (talk) 16:50, 20 February 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: four opposes, only one support (nominator) and four days without participation

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

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 20:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:12 Abu'l Hasan Jahangir Welcoming Shah 'Abbas, ca. 1618, Freer Gallery of Art, Washington DC.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 08:29:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Abu'l Hasan - uploaded by Eugene a - nominated by Sahand Ace -- Sahand Ace 08:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sahand Ace 08:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
~~Oppose~~ - Sorry, but to my understanding, this photo should be deleted from Commons. See the "rights statement" here: "Copyright with museum". And if you click "terms of use", you'll see that only non-commercial use is allowed without special permission: "To request images and rights for commercial use, please contact reprorights@si.edu. To request images and rights for the press, please contact pressasia@si.edu. For full legal details, please see the Smithsonian’s terms of use for digital assets." Since Commons uses a Creative Commons Copyleft that enables free commercial or non-commercial use with credit, these terms are not compatible with this project. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is covered by {{PD-ART}}. The WMF's position is "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain". These sites try to be greedy with their licensing, but Commons offers them the middle-finger salute. lNeverCry 09:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice to see something different. lNeverCry 09:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - INeverCry, thanks for talking me through that. I guess more knowledgeable legal minds than I have examined U.S. laws and casework and determined that a lawsuit by the Smithsonian wouldn't be successful. That being the case: Judging the photo on its merits, it is unsurprisingly an excellent photo, and this is a beautiful Mughal painting in very good condition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ikan Kekek that is in many museums, wannabe "copyright". If this is from 1620 no question about legal right. Wondering how can museums etc are allowed to put such "copyright notice". Its not legal, but i saw many. --Mile (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright is on the photograph, not the artwork itself. Art photography is a real skill, as we all know. The question of whether the copyright has the force of law is the one I don't know the answer to, but haven't some art photographers sued on the basis that their work was being used without any kind of royalties or even credit being given? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: The biggest threatened lawsuit Commons has encountered was from the NPG London (see User:Dcoetzee/NPG legal threat/Coverage). WMF backed up Derrick and said they didn't consider Sweat of the brow an acceptable policy and were confident a suit by the NPG would be unsuccessful in the US. This came after a mass transfer of NPG images by Derrick, who is based in the bay area. A British citizen or company might not have fared so well against the NPG. lNeverCry 22:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 10:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Entrance on Sonnenstrasse, Munich, February 2017.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 07:12:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors#Germany
Info Entrance to building on Sonnenstraße 15, Munich; all by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 07:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really excellent application of abstract techniques in modern architecture, and a fine picture. This stands out to me as particularly good, even among FP candidates. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Als Münchnerin - ja! --Schnobby (talk) 08:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lucas ^T 09:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality (but can you scrape the chewing gum off?) Charles (talk) 09:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support and per Charles if possible. --cart-Talk 10:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info OK, I've swept the floor a bit - but I still wouldn't eat off it ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice unsymmetric symmetry! Unfortunately the NR is a bit visible. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support though the NR is so strong that it almost looks like it came from a compact camera; sufficient quality nonetheless. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 21:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 22:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per others although we maybe have a copyright issue here (no FoP for building interiors in Germany). --Code (talk) 06:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many, if not most interiors on Commons may turn out to be problematic one way or the other. I don't know if that's a "mitigating factor" in my "case" but technically I didn't even leave public ground to take this picture... ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know whom to call just in case ... --Code (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ---Pugilist (talk) 07:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 10:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ostankino Tower.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 11:37:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
Info The Ostankino TV Tower in Moscow. Created, uploaded and nominated by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Very good, but I see 2 dust spots near the upper left corner and 1 on the left side lower down in the sky that need to be fixed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: I removed all dust spots. -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apart from those dust spots I see a slight bending / CCW-tilt. Repairing this would significantly raise your chances. Having seen your picture in QI, I expected to find it here in the FP candidates ... --PtrQs (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support but per PtrQs. Thanks! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The reflection of the tower extends gracefully into the fallen leaves below. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - There might still be some very light dust spots, but if so, they're so light I'm not sure I see them. This is good enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 21:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I wish that wedge of sidewalk or whatever wasn't there at the lower left, and the sky still looks a little spotty, but nicely done otherwise. Daniel Case (talk) 08:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 08:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--g. balaxaZe★ 17:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Japan tea ceremony 1165.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 13:33:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created and uploaded by Ermell - nominated by W.carter -- cart-Talk 13:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are some very minor flaws in this, but taken as a whole, the photo is serene and simply beautiful! -- cart-Talk 13:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. Also a powerful reminder of my own inability to sit in seiza for more than 2 minutes ;) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ - Dull light. Maybe the specialness of this photo is lost on me, but what I see is a very dark bokehish background to a drably lit scene. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 07:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Serene, yes, and I love the color, but those three red things in the back make it a little too busy for FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support @Ikan. You were right. I changed some things a bit which didn´t find perfect.--Ermell (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ermell: Thanks for the fixing. The 'ping' system doesn't work the same way here as it does on Twitter (the way you wrote just "@Ikan") so I will ping him here (@Ikan Kekek: ) in the way that will get him the message. Look at the code in the editing window and you will see how it is done. --cart-Talk 15:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. Moderate Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not the best quality, but good composition --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 21:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Vic-la-Gardiole, Hérault 10.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 16:33:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France
Info All be me. -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry - generically pretty countryside, but this composition doesn't make much of an impression on me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I kind of like it, but I think the impact of the pathway would be better if the photo was cropped just where it ceases to be seen (+ a clean cut between the trees). That way it looks like it went on forever. I'll make a note. --cart-Talk 21:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion W.carter, but I don't know... it's true that the image is more centered on the subject, and this is not a bad idea but this change not a lot the image, so I prefer to keep the space and this aspect ratio Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Oh well, you can't get everything in life. :) It's a good pic anyway. --cart-Talk 18:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Composition, light, landscape - everything is beautiful here. The DoF could be somewhat better but I know that's getting difficult at 70mm. Nice lens, btw. --Code (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 07:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although cart's suggested crop couldn't hurt. Daniel Case (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely composition with the bridge and the river in parallel,more the sunset light. Adorable. --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 17:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 21:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 22:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Crosswalk of Market at Third, San Francisco.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 22:38:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by dllu - uploaded by dllu - nominated by dllu -- dllu (t,c) 22:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- dllu (t,c) 22:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Absolutely YES! KennyOMG (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 22:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't get what's featurable about this. It's a crosswalk with some lines in the street. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I nominated this picture because, in my opinion, the strong diagonal lines gives a striking geometric quality to the iamge. dllu (t,c) 11:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not exactly Shibuya crossing. The grey overcast weather and the lack of traffic or pedestrians mean this photo doesn't have the necessary spark or life. -- Colin (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I intentionally selected this image out of dozens to have less traffic. It is too visually cluttered to have this intersection full of random cars. dllu (t,c) 11:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support The shapes and lines make this image very appealing, imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shapes and lines. The light gives the photo a gritty NYPD Blue feeling. Not all FPs need to be some manicured Technicolor version of Legoland. --cart-Talk 10:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not my point at all. Gritty can be good, but it's very hard for the mundane to wow me. This doesn't look like New York to me, though: We haven't had any trolleys for decades (since the 1950s, I think - my parents remembered them but they didn't exist in my lifetime). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think ~~his~~her point was more about the aesthetic of NYPD Blue rather than literally being in New York itself. dllu (t,c) 11:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be her point. But NYPD Blue was about New York, not San Francisco. As a New Yorker who's also spent a good deal of time in San Francisco, I'm probably too close to both objects to really be able to understand the broad scope of what she means. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who's 'she', the cat's mother? Well, dllu you are absolutely right. I was talking about the feel of a city you get when you watch that TV-show. Ikan, you are taking things far too literary sometimes. I know that I should refrain from speaking metaphorically when describing the mood in photos, but sometimes it is what best describes the feeling I get for a pic. Have you ever been to a wine tasting Ikan? At such events they can speak of the the wine's "nutty flavor with earthy tones and a hint of licorice" to describe the taste of the wine even though there are no nuts, soil or licorice in the actual wine. Using films, songs and TV-series to describe moods in photos work along the same line. Also, please keep in mind that I'm Swedish, and even though I've been to both New York and San Francisco and know they are two very different cities, to me this photo (and NYPD Blue) simply looks "American". I'm sure you could make the same sort of generalization wrt Stockholm and Gothenburg, and simply see them as "Swedish" even if trams are more common in Gothenburg. --cart-Talk 13:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been to Sweden yet. But you basically said the same thing as I: I'm too close to the objects to see the panoramic view you see. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed a very different take, one that made me stop and take notice when I was scrolling through new nominations. Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You have to give a reason for opposing. Is being different the reason for the oppose? dllu (t,c) 20:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry ... I had meant to type support. Daniel Case (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Just a messy composition. Charles (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful photograph. WClarke 20:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't why....but i like the composition,isn't messy for me --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 21:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Super interesting perspective and composition. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 05:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Facade of the Palace Hotel, San Francisco.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 22:42:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by dllu - uploaded by dllu - nominated by dllu -- dllu (t,c) 22:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- dllu (t,c) 22:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since walls like this are used to test lenses for distortion, I can't help but notice it isn't perfectly regular. Do you have a lens profile you can apply in your raw conversion software? Have you considered making a b&w version -- the lighting isn't a feature here, nor the sky interesting, and you are left with a study of patterns and form, which works well in b&w. -- Colin (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have the lens distortion profile. I have either forgotten to apply it or there is some residual perspective distortion on the left side. Anyhow, the distortion is extremely small, much less than Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:128 Balconies of 1390 Market Street, San Francisco.jpg which has several supports even though it has a large amount of barrel distortion, especially visible in the bottom corners. Compared to that nomination, this photo also has similar lighting and a vastly more architecturally significant, interesting building. dllu (t,c) 11:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just being picky. Not an oppose reason. I haven't really decided if there's enough wow here for FP. -- Colin (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Info I've just replaced the image with the version with lens correction profiles. It should be well corrected now. dllu (t,c) 20:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm OK with this. Daniel Case (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boring. Charles (talk) 11:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info Monochrome version. dllu (t,c) 20:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Philips Series 7000 shaver head.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 22:15:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Machines
Info A new Philips Series 7000 shaver head, photographed in the style of a promotional image. All by me -- Colin (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support 35 frames... great! --Ralf Roleček 22:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 22:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I must point out that there are a few minor blurry spots on edges and overlaps, because I spend some time retouching my recent own stacks correcting these things. – Lucas ^T 22:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ...and sufficiently clean too. This is one piece of machinery you don't want a dirty close-up of! ;) The surface lends itself very nicely to such a photo. --cart-Talk 22:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just one little thing that could be corrected: Down center there are two places where you can see some flesh-toned reflections, probably from you. It would look nicer if those were in grey tones instead. --cart-Talk 22:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cart, Lucas: I've updated a new version with the reflection removed and the blurred areas fixed with sharper frames. -- Colin (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support You should work in advertising. Great photo. WClarke 22:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 22:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding shot – although I'm more into handcrafted tools ;-) --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Frank. I'm a wet shave man myself, though with more modern technology than your link :-). My wife thinks I'm completely bonkers, spending the evening in the kitchen taking dozens of photos of my son's shaver. I showed her the result and she said: "It's a shaver. So?" *sigh* -- Colin (talk) 08:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great texture. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shot! I guess I´m gonna have to learn focus stacking :) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 05:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 06:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Enthusiastic support Utterly stunning result! Was it really necessary to shoot 36 frames? What's the (average) DoF of each image? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

technical discussion about stacking

Thanks. Unlike Lucas, I'm not very experienced with focus stacking. I used stacking for my Electric steam iron five years ago, but my infrequent attempts since then have mostly failed. When you have overlaping parts like here, it is a real PITA because the out-of-focus blur from a near edge hides the detail from the far surface. First time using a new lens and new software (Helicon focus) which impressed me with its output and retouching tool (though I still needed Photoshop as I couldn't get the hang of the clone tool in that program). I'll try to measure the DoF tonight, though the official "DoF" on a lens is "Acceptable sharpness when looking at an 8×10" photo from normal distance" whereas for this we need the sharpness to be good enough you don't see any softening between frames at all. I need to experiment more with optimum aperture and steps. The shaver head is about 6 cm across so on a 100 dpi monitor, you are looking at 20× magnification. The 36 steps would be about 1.7 mm each on average. I measured the nearest and furthest focus points, marked them on the lens barrel with tape, and then nudged lens focus slightly after each shot. Perhaps Lucas has some advice on technique. -- Colin (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, I currently do it exactly the same way with markings on my lens and nudging the focus ring tiniest amounts forward (approx. 0.5 mm on the lens barrel), but I sometimes get gaps in my stacks which I notice too late (because I was impatient and turned it a bit too much). I tried Helicon Remote (comes free with Helicon Focus Pro licenses, just get the exe file) which is a PC liveview program that gives autofocus commands to the lens, but it requires serious setup time to work right and my lens would only move in one direction, so I wasn't patient enough to set it all up for use. Regarding the overlaps, in File:Canon EF 16-35mm f4L IS USM front angled with hood.jpg for example I had serious blurring and had to manually mask the front part of the lens hood and clone the background further down behind it. Tedious work. You could try Method C in HF, it's better suited for overlaps but the downside is, this method increases contrast and sometimes adds halos. – Lucas ^T 12:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas, I'll experiment with the other methods, though I don't see how any software can automatically recover what isn't there -- if the blur obscures part of the subject, then that's lost information you just have to clone back. There seem to be options for the blur radius too. I wonder, with your lens+hood, whether you'd have been better removing the hood to stack the lens, then repeat with the hood on to stack the hood, then combine the two images in Photoshop. I suppose I could have done the same with the shaver head + body, though there would be a big risk I move the body too much when removing the head. I'm afraid Helicon Remote doesn't work with my Sony camera, and this is a manual focus lens anyway. I do like the way layer retouching works in Helicon Focus. Do you use their clone tool? If so, perhaps you could drop some info on my talk page? I couldn't work it out at all, compared with Photoshop. -- Colin (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, it's just that HF tutorials advise to use Method C for overlapping things (http://www.heliconsoft.com/helicon-focus-main-parameters/), how well it works you would need to try on your own. I haven't tried the HF cloning tool yet, I defaulted to PS cloning tools as you did, also because I want to mask the front part and do many other things in PS anyway. Shooting hood and lens separately would not have helped, the perspective is the same thus the overlapping parts are unchanged. – Lucas ^T 12:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I suggested removing the hood is that when it is out-of-focus (when you focus on the lens body) then its blurred rendered form is larger and obscures the sharp lens body detail at the margin. Thus by removing the hood, you'd get a sharp body that could later be blended with the hood. -- Colin (talk) 12:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per everyone else - really impressive! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 08:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice shoot and professional and I think that your quality is improving ~~Diliff~~ Colin. Clean and perfect, I added a note to let more space there --The Photographer 12:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Photographer, I'll check but I'm pretty sure I have no more of the image at the bottom, to change the crop. I agree I could have included a bit more when I took the photos. -- Colin (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you should do it again because the image is already done, however, it's a minor problem --The Photographer 12:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well executed. Charles (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Daniel Case (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:* Question why, Daniel? I'm really interested because you also had the option not to vote at all. I understand that overly technical pics tend to polarize more than other subjects. Something along that line? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, I suspect the reason has nothing to do with this nomination, just me. So would appreciate any comment by Daniel unrelated to this nom, be made on Martin's or Daniel's talk page. -- Colin (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe he's not sure if support or oppose for some wow raison. --The Photographer 12:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support No doubt FP. --Pugilist (talk) 07:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 05:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Бандери 2015.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2017 at 19:23:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
Info created by Шпиц - uploaded by Шпиц - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tilted. Please fix. Yann (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done The tilt has been fixed so that the first tower is now centred.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No, the tilt is not fixed. It is titled about 2.15° CCW. The clouds at the horizon should be horizontal. And as the power line poles are most probably vertical, there is also perspective distortion. I made a tentative correction, but it should preferably be down from RAW: File:Бандери 2015 (edit).jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral pending correction pointed out by Yann. Daniel Case (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 21:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ezarateesteban 21:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:HibisGate3Dareios1AmunRaMut.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2017 at 15:31:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Relief of Persian king Darius I in Egypt

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Roland Unger - uploaded by Roland Unger - nominated by Roland Unger -- RolandUnger (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- RolandUnger (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Lights, perspective distortion. KennyOMG (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose by KennyOMG, - unless you can fix all that ... --PtrQs (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kenny. lNeverCry 02:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kenny. Daniel Case (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 16:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]