Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/February 2021

File:Echte tonderzwam (Fomes fomentarius) 25-12-2020 (actm.) 05.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2021 at 16:46:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family : Polyporaceae
Info Wet tinder fungus on a fallen dead tree trunk between fallen beech leaves.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support The shadow is a little bit disturbing. --XRay 💬 08:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 14:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per XRay, I wouldn't be unhappy if this was promoted though. Cmao20 (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per XRay. --Aristeas (talk) 10:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry this looks too much like a snapshot while out for a walk. Common fungus, boring composition, bad lighting. Compare File:Zunderschwamm (Fomes fomentarius)-20191227-RM-145922.jpg, an FP. -- Colin (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Per others. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Things, shadows and colors are merging in a way that create confusion. --Camelia (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per XRay, and apart from the shadow burnt areas at the bottom, strange POV, disturbing elements in the compo (here per Colin), sorry Poco a poco (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. --Tagooty (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi#Family : Polyporaceae

File:Esther before Ahasuerus, Franciszek Smuglewicz, 1778.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2021 at 20:43:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/People#Group
Info created by Franciszek Smuglewicz uploaded and nominated by Hanooz -- Hanooz 20:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hanooz 20:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Shagil Kannur (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Camelia (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support @Hanooz: A more specific gallery is Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/People#Groups --Tagooty (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Fixed. Hanooz 13:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/People#Group

File:Bloody Saturday, Shanghai.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2021 at 06:04:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by en:H. S. Wong - uploaded by Yann - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 06:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 06:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ an immensely important and influential photograph as is - but technically in need of restoration (maybe). Now that's a tricky one. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Colin --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question Do you know how big prints of this photo have been? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

of course I do. And I've already given my support. But isn't this a good example to illustrate how our usual obsession with technical perfection leads to basically nothing. Don't get me wrong, it's awesome to have people in our community who take care of images in need of restoration. But a minor scratch here and there doensn't devalue images. And neither does grain - nor noise. See, my line above was a trick to get that discussion started. Thanks for falling into that trap. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hadn't voted. I just like to know how big the prints are when considering historical photos. If the print was way smaller than the digital photo, should that have no bearing on my vote? Even if you think it shouldn't, "I know and won't tell you because I want to stretch things to make an object lesson of you" isn't very nice. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ikan Kekek, I'd like to apologize! I've honestly thought your question was rhetorical in nature. The original is a (medium format, I suppose) negative - so there's no real size limit to prints. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I think I agree with Colin on favoring the original, though. Let's nominate the original, and I will support. I will say that I don't think my questions on FPC are usually rhetorical; they can almost always be replied to. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Martin Falbisoner, maybe you didn't notice that this is actually a "restored" version. The original appears to be this TIF file. I don't think this restoration represents our "finest". The contrast has been enhanced to blacken the blacks, and the fixing of assumed scratches and perceived marks has extended to the baby and in particular the baby's face. Where we clean up some map or poster, it is fair enough to use a little artistic licence, but I agree with you that there is no documentary or educational improvement in photoshopping this historical photo like this. -- Colin (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your link to the original, Colin - you're absolutely right! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support: In general, this restored image looks sharper than original file. It's also fine to nominate the .tif file to respect original scanned image. --Steven Sun (talk) 07:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support: per steven. Seven Pandas (talk) 13:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. Given the historical significance of this image, I think we'd be better off not promoting a version where the original's aesthetic choices have been superseded by someone other than the creator. Daniel Case (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nomination. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination IamMM (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Кришталеві крила.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2021 at 22:10:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
Info Pushcha-Vodytsky Forest Park, Obolon district, Kyiv. 9th place of International "Wiki Love Earth 2020". Created and uploaded by Сергій Мірошник - nominated by DimasSolo -- DimasSolo (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- DimasSolo (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Parts of the insect are a bit out of focus but it makes up for that in wow factor imo. Buidhe (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Luda.slominska (talk) 09:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 13:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Heard to believe that it is a photograph. Excellent.--Shagil Kannur (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the water bubbles on the wings --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 04:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose So little in focus and fringing around blurred head and leaves. Nothing like the quality of Sven Damerow's stacked images 15:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesjsharp (talk • contribs)
Support I thought it was one of Sven Damerow's photos at first, it shows a similar style. I must admit I agree with Charles that it is some way off that level of quality, but it still does enough for FP to me. Cmao20 (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An essential part of the insect, namely the head is out of focus.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose. Ringing noted in other opposes. Daniel Case (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ambivalent - I keep going back and forth on this. On one hand, I think it's a nice motif, interesting light... kind of reminds me of something you'd see on a greeting card or inspirational poster or something. So I want to support because it's "something different." On the other hand, my liking it relies on keeping it small. At full size it doesn't really work. "Neutral" mainly to justify the time I've spent reconsidering it. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pavlo1 (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Camelia (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 08:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Great egret in GWC (43539).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2021 at 05:54:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes#Genus_:_Ardea
Info Great egret stabbing the water in Brooklyn, NY. I nominated this a while ago, but it was quickly pointed out that I messed up the post-processing. I started from scratch and fixed several issues. Another image at FPC with similar motif reminded me that I intended to renominate (hopefully the timing is not gauche). all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. I think you should consider contacting the NYC Parks Department. I realize Green-Wood Cemetery is not a park, but you've also taken great photos of birds in parks that they might be interested in using. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Sometimes I tweet a picture and @ the park/place. Prospect Park used a picture I took in their year-end fundraising email, NYC Parks has posted something to their Instagram. That's about it. I've tried to reach out to organize an event with WikiNYC, but while one might still happen, I've been informed they're all incredibly understaffed right now. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 11:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 07:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ahmad^talk 07:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Egretful support But what is that orange fringe seen on one of the bird's legs and the reflection of its head and neck? Daniel Case (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely done. Cmao20 (talk) 09:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes#Genus_:_Ardea

File:Anna Bilińska-Bohdanowiczowa - Black girl - MP 5531 - National Museum in Warsaw.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2021 at 13:18:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/People#Paintings
Info created by Anna Bilińska-Bohdanowiczowa - uploaded by BotMultichillT - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support IamMM (talk) 06:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 20:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Camelia (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 10:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support FP to me. Cmao20 (talk) 09:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/People#Paintings

File:Mandelbulb OpenCL 225MPx 20201202.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2021 at 19:33:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Computer-generated#Mathematics
Info Neutral perspective of a Mandelbulb (power 9). Original 15Kx15K image with 64 bit color depth in the file history. This image has also global lighting. Created/uploaded/nominated by PantheraLeo1359531 -- PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't been able to decide whether this is an FP composition to me, but it's certainly interesting, and I'd encourage you to nominate it at COM:VIC, regardless of the outcome here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vaasa Barracks.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2021 at 17:10:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Finland
Info: Vaasa Barracks, Suomenlinna, Finland. All by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not the right time of the day to make this photo. Without those shadows it might have been a featured one --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The shadows are bothersome. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Also, the sky isn't helping and is blotchy in places. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ironically, the shadows don’t bother me, but the facade is unsharp and oversharpened at the same time, sorry. --Aristeas (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chaïm Soutine - Vue de Céret.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2021 at 02:11:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Exteriors#Towns
Info Vue de Céret (View of Céret). 1922 landscape painting of Céret, France by Chaïm Soutine. A great example of this painter's style of expressionism. created by Chaïm Soutine - uploaded by StellarHalo - nominated by StellarHalo -- StellarHalo (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- StellarHalo (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not a huge photo, but also a small painting, and the size of the photo is completely adequate to show the brushstrokes on the canvas. Pity it's in a private collection and not a museum, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support IamMM (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Exteriors#Towns

File:Bischwind Wallfahrtskirche St.Maria-20201024-RM-163047.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2021 at 12:03:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Germany
Info I thought this was a striking photo, with some nice golden light and effective leading lines in the composition. created by Ermell - uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The curved furrows leading to the church add much to it. --Aristeas (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Due to the field, which reminds a bit of a minefield, the church gets something unreachable. But the main entrance is on the right side of the tower. Thanks for the nom.--Ermell (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The foreground is great, and the light excellent -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 07:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The dry terrain gives it a special atmosphere --Wilfredor (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colors match perfectly Poco a poco (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 16:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 16:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bruges City Hall Interior.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2021 at 12:03:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Belgium
Info A really amazing HDR interior of Bruges City Hall. The detail on the paintings around the walls is truly stunning. created by Mdbeckwith - uploaded by Mdbeckwith - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 16:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Spectacular and a good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dreamlike. --Aristeas (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb photo! --Gnosis (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course --Wilfredor (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 07:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support In lockdown wonderfully possible without people.--Ermell (talk) 10:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's from 2018 :) - Benh (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support We are spoilt with superb quality of interiors which isn't the case here but the motif is great and compensates that Poco a poco (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 16:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support JukoFF (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the slight soft focus. Daniel Case (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 05:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 16:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nevelzwam (nebularis) in verval. 09-01-2021 (d.j.b.) 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2021 at 06:26:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family : Tricholomataceae
Info A rained out (Clitocybe nebularis) in disrepair, at the foot of a compost heap. Focus stack of 18 photos.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality but to my mind not an outstanding subject. Cmao20 (talk) 09:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the comment.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Reeds at Jones Beach at sunset (04924).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2021 at 05:46:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/United_States#New_York
Info Reeds at sunset on Jones Beach, New York. This one is all about the mood to me. Might not be for everyone. We'll see. :) all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed very atmospheric. --Aristeas (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 07:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose <5% of the image is in focus - just does not work for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice mood indeed, but the right crop feels kind of random to me because of what it does to the reeds in the foreground. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It would work for me if there was just the one tassel above the other ones, but with all the other things above the line, it feels a little cluttered. Daniel Case (talk) 04:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination does not appear to be going anywhere — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:ארובות עשנות בבית חרושת למלט בנשר. צילום של יהודה גביש 1966.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2021 at 15:03:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Industry#Israel (missing title)
Info created by Yehuda Gavish - uploaded by Hanay - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support historic photograph, interesting composition, high quality scan contributed by the daughter of the photographer. -- Tomer T (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is a wonderful picture that tell an historicle story. Hanay (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 16:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but I struggle to see high quality here and the tilt is really distracting. --Ivar (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small (under 2MB) and too noisy and it needs a perspective correction. It might become a valued image --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Too small is under 2 megapixels, not 2 megabytes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC) Sorry, you are right --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ivar. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose +1--Peulle (talk) 11:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan --Navneetsharmaiit (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:PK Thatta asv2020-02 img01 Shah Jahan Mosque.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2021 at 23:14:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Pakistan
Info Inner yard of the Shah Jahan Mosque, Thatta/Pakistan ---- all by A.Savin --A.Savin 23:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 23:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry but don't like the angel. --Gnosis (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What angel?

Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh noo! :-) --Gnosis (talk) 08:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Gnosis, but it's the angle I don't like. Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --A.Savin 12:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orthoceras, Erfoud, Marruecos, 2021-01-24, DD 001-047 FS.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2021 at 22:04:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones_and_fossils#Phylum_:_Mollusca
Info Focus stacked image (composed of 40 frames) of a Orthoceras sp. found in Erfoud, region of Tafilalt, Morocco. The 5.3 centimetres (2.1 in)-long horn belongs to an extinct genus of nautiloid cephalopods that lived in the Silurian period and is approx. 420 million years old. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, I was asked to start a new nom, I ping you as you participated in the last one. @Iifar, Ikan Kekek, and StellarHalo: Thanks for your patience. Poco a poco (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Poco a poco (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support No problem. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent, again I think you have really improved the lighting on these focus stacks. Cmao20 (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support IamMM (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 12:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is so much better than the original nom, which was clearly not at FP standard. There are still quite obvious signs of photoshop repair all along the top edge, which isn't really justifiable because a solid convex object should focus stack with little trouble at all. -- Colin (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 17:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Camelia (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't find it particularly special... Sorry to prevent this from getting speedy promoted. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Bones_and_fossils#Phylum_:_Mollusca

File:Water reflection of a wooden house surrounded by trees with farmers walking in the paddy fields of Vang Vieng Laos.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2021 at 00:14:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Agriculture#Laos
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 07:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 16:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 05:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 10:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Agriculture#Laos

File:Asiyab badi.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2021 at 05:19:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Iran
Info created / uploaded by Dolphinphoto5d - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice but not great enough to overcome technical flaws. The original was very noisy due to the processing (original was ISO 100, but the shadows have been lifted +100 and no sharpening mask was used to avoid the sky getting noisy) and then someone has uploaded a denoised version that is now very soft all over. A soft 10MP landscape image isn't state-of-the-art for 2021. -- Colin (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Camelia (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
weak support It's frustrating when the post-processing could have so clearly been executed better, but while I acknowledge there are several shortcomings here, I think it's still worth a feature for being a spectacular scene with passable quality. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We have a lot of great FPs of Iran now. I don't feel like this is a great photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above Poco a poco (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Rhododendrites, the quality could be better but it is definitely an impressive photo Cmao20 (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Per above --Co mmon ists 15:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Illuminated Ferris wheel, bouncing castle and carousel at night in a funfair in Vientiane, Laos.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2021 at 00:18:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Machines
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Rocky Masum (talk) 07:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A rare nomination of this sort of image that actually works. Love the colors. Daniel Case (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazingly colourful photo. Cmao20 (talk) 10:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Macierzynstwo 1905.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2021 at 07:24:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/People#Groups
Info created by Stanisław Wyspiański - uploaded by Shalom Alechem - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 07:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 07:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 07:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support For the right woman, a print of this would make a great baby shower gift ... Daniel Case (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and huge resolution -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--SM1 (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/People#Groups

File:Diente rostral de un pez sierra extinto (Onchorpristis numidus), Kem Kem, Marruecos, 2021-01-15, DD 187-243 FS.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2021 at 13:39:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones_and_fossils#Class_:_Chondrichthyes
Info Focus stacked image (composed of 57 frames) of a rostral tooth from an extinct sawfish (Onchopristis numidus) found in the Kem Kem Beds, Morocco. The 8 centimetres (3.1 in)-long tooth comes from the Campanian (Late Cretaceous epoch) and is 80 million years old. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Outline, and other parts not equally sharp everywhere. Maybe f / 11 was not the best choice.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Famberhorst: The area noted by Ivar could be sharper, the outline is fine IMHO but again you look at a 50 MPx (apart from a chunk cropped on top and bottom to avoid big empty areas). I can definitely "offer much more sharpness" downsizing it, would you then support?. Regading the aperture, what would be your suggestion? The bigger the aperture the more frames I'll need and already processing 57 pictures of 50MPx takes a while...Poco a poco (talk) 13:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Answer: I have no experience with 50 MPx. But technically, I think f5.6 or f / 7.1 is a better choice. 57 photos also seems too many to me. I estimate that the depth of the photo is about 3 cm. used to be. If you divide that by 57 photos. Then the photos are very close together. And the program may mix it up. With some stacking programs you can delete a number of photos alternately. Then the end result is sometimes sharper. This is my personal opinion. You may experience it differently. Personally, I think a sharp outline is essential in a stacked photo.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Maybe I'm too easily impressed by this kind of photo or subject? I don't know, but it's impressive to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Closest area is not in focus (note added). --Ivar (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, photographically. Sorry, I'm not getting the point of photostacking when the result isn't sharp and has all the photographic artistic merit of an ebay listing or passport photo. I don't really know what is wrong with just getting a QI or VI. Let's leave FP for images that have wow please. -- Colin (talk) 11:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As diplomatic as usual Poco a poco (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Colin, sorry. Homogeneous and very bright surrounding along with focusing error makes the whole composition look rather uninteresting. --Ivar (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin and Ivar. Daniel Case (talk) 18:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poco a poco (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Poco a poco (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sierra Maestra panorama1.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2021 at 17:37:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Cuba
Info: Sierra Maestra, Turquino National Park, Cuba. -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The incline on the right isn't balanced by anything on the left, and that makes the form not work for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The mountain on the right doesn't bother me. What does is the unsharpness at distance, more so since the metadata doesn't tell us what the aperture setting was. Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:A B-52 Stratofortress receiving fuel from a KC-10 Extender (210127-F-ER377-9312).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2021 at 18:51:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
Info created by Staff Sgt. Trevor McBride - uploaded & nominated by ToprakM --ToprakM ^✉ 18:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ToprakM ^✉ 18:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunate reflections on the upper left corner. Otherwise, a good VI but not as spectacular or well composed as other photos of military planes we've featured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Ikan; I also find the pinkish tint of the clouds strange. Daniel Case (talk) 05:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, plus crammed composition & sharpening haloes. --El Grafo (talk) 10:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yom Kippur War. XXXVII.jpg (delist and replace), delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2021 at 18:53:37

Existing FP

Suggested replacement

Info Higher resolution scan now available (and wider) (Original nomination)
Delist and replace -- Tomer T (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Gnosis (talk) 04:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --StellarHalo (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Cayambe (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --GRDN711 (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace "We will infiltrate this area. The artillery goes here. The infantry goes here." Daniel Case (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Andrei (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace Cmao20 (talk) 09:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 9 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /--A.Savin 21:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tomatoes in basket 2020 G1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2021 at 14:32:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Fruits (raw)
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Centred composition too plain/unoriginal. There are thousands of pictures of tomatoes on Commons and this doesn't stand out to me. -- Colin (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A simple composition but well portrayed for me. The hint of shadow to the right of the basket is also beautifully portrayed.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the subject a lot, makes me look forward towards summer! But there are several points that keep me from supporting. 1) not a fan of the on-camera flash as it leads to rather flat lighting and awkward, unnatural highlights on the fruits. 2) The straw makes for a busy fore- and background. It is very similar to the basket in both color and texture, so that the main subject struggles to stand out against its surroundings. 3) A centered composition can be quite successful in the right environment. Not sure that's the case here, though. In any case, if you go for centered, better make sure it is actually centered. --El Grafo (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposes. Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simple but rustic -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 17:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure what exactly the slightly off-center placement of the basket is adding to the composition... —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Maybe a bit low on the 'wow-factor', I agree with some of El Grafo's points, but it's a bright, cheerful photo and I think it classes as one of the best on Commons overall. Cmao20 (talk) 09:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:2.জাতীয় সংসদ ভবন.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2021 at 07:39:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors
Info created & uploaded by Pinu Rahman - nominated by RockyMasum -- Rocky Masum (talk) 07:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rocky Masum (talk) 07:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice view -- it's not far from FP level, but the failed symmetry spoils it for me. --A.Savin 13:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin. Daniel Case (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A. Savin, it's an amazing aerial view but also the kind of subject where symmetry is really necessary. Cmao20 (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Savin. --Gnosis (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Merfeld, Feldweg am Mühlenbach -- 2021 -- 4347-51.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2021 at 08:43:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#North Rhine-Westphalia
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 08:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 08:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thank you to Ikan Kekek for the suggestion to nominate the picture. --XRay 💬 08:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SM1 (talk) 09:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support You're welcome. I like the long sight lines, the channel and rows of trees, the clouds and the light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice one, I'd wish more crispness though. --A.Savin 13:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lotje (talk) 13:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 16:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clarity and contrasts (blacks) may be a bit strong, still nice sky and good composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support IamMM (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The trees closer to the camera have some ringing and their outer branches look decidedly unnatural. But everything else went right and I love the lines ... it reminds me of Basile's Laos pics. Daniel Case (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. Definitely has everything I'm looking for in an FP. Cmao20 (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Buidhe (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 26 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Germany#North Rhine-Westphalia

File:Oranges - whole-halved-segment.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2021 at 06:11:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food_and_drink#Fruits_(raw)
Info all by Ivar (talk) 06:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is it possible to remove the abrupt transitions of the colours of the bottom? --Llez (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Llez: would You care to elaborate about abrupt transitions of the colours on my talk page? I probably missed it in my physics class. --Ivar (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sorry, my fault, I misinterpreted the reflection of the oranges. --Llez (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Camelia (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop is to tigth. Also positioning could be better. --Mile (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 11:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 09:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food_and_drink#Fruits_(raw)

File:SBB RABe 511 029 Flums with snow.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2021 at 05:43:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info created & uploaded by David Gubler - nominated by Ivar (talk) 05:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 05:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Another excellent train picture from David. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poor David, always sitting out in the snow! —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No worries, it was quite a pleasant day. The only nuisance was that some trains were up to ~30 minutes late and a few were even canceled. And btw. thanks to Ivar for the nomination! --Kabelleger (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 16:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another nice one. Cmao20 (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Buidhe (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles

File:Kaplica grobowa rodziny Potockich P1680784 Peczera.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2021 at 19:16:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Ukraine
Info created by Posterrr - uploaded by Posterrr - nominated by Pavlo1 -- Pavlo1 (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pavlo1 (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to me. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice cohibition of colors, molodec. --Mile (talk) 10:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 14:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some details are a bit soft (due to noise reduction?), but overall beautiful and atmospheric. --Aristeas (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but oversaturated --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice, but a little too warm for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Uaoei1. I can forgive the apparent low contrast because it's really the yellow leaves reflecting onto the chapel wall, but the composition also does not work for me with this light. Daniel Case (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per others --StellarHalo (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely colours and subject, but could do with a bit more contrast (and an English caption). Cmao20 (talk) 09:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cathedral of Our Lady of Rodez 79.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2021 at 13:57:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#France
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It isn't a great angle to show the architecture of this building. Everything is a bit flat here. Usual problems with huge buildings of being close and so perspective looks odd. The top left edge shows blur (camera shake?) and the people are distracting. Perhaps not the best light, with only the very tips being lit with sun and the rest in shade. Maybe another visit? The angle in File:Cathédrale Notre-Dame. Rodez.jpg might be better. -- Colin (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 16:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Great motif but I agree with Colin that it looks a bit blurry in places. Cmao20 (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looking again and again at this one, I think it is an interesting angle because it allows to study the quite inhomogeneous facade with its many interesting details. Light and colours are good. It’s a pity that there is some blur at the top-left edge. I wonder if one could clone-out the two people. --Aristeas (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. --Gnosis (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting building, and I think the people give a sense of scale. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mymandelbrot3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2021 at 18:49:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

$A computer-generated variation of the famous Mandelbrot fractal, based on a different mathematical function. Details on the file description.$

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated#Mathematics
Info created by GrandEscogriffe - uploaded by GrandEscogriffe - nominated by GrandEscogriffe -- GrandEscogriffe (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support as creator and proponent. -- GrandEscogriffe (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Category:Mandelbrot sets has plenty wonderful images. I don't think this one is in the same league. -- Colin (talk) 12:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per Colin. --SM1 (talk) 11:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Petite Venise depuis le pont de la rue de Turenne (Colmar) (12).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2021 at 13:48:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created by Gzen92 - uploaded by Gzen92 - nominated by Gzen92 -- Gzen92 ^[discuter] 13:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gzen92 ^[discuter] 13:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very gray. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The gray sky works for me. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I still wonder if the white balance is good, but if we take it as it is it makes a nice ‘impressionist’ photo. --Aristeas (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Works for me because the angularity of the buildings overcomes the grayish overtones. Daniel Case (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can try changing the white balance but i'm having difficulty, it could be worse! Gzen92 ^[discuter] 09:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose This is a tough one, it's a really nice photo when viewed in full res, and I applaud the great image quality and the detail on the houses. But the lighting is very grey and dull. This motif in a nice blue sky, or even a dramatic stormy sky, would be FP, but this just looks overcast. Cmao20 (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I modified the gray levels, I hope it's better. Gzen92 ^[discuter] 14:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek and Cmao20: The modification of gray levels can change your vote? Thanks. Gzen92 ^[discuter] 07:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, sorry, it's still not striking me as great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gzen92 It's more the light that's the problem, which is something I don't think can be fixed in post-processing. You had the misfortune to be there on a very dull and overcast day. Cmao20 (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Морозний ранок біля Троїцько-Іллінського монастиря.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2021 at 20:18:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery:Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Ukraine
Info created by Казун Андрій - uploaded by Andrew4you - nominated by Pavlo1 -- Pavlo1 (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pavlo1 (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would have preferred a more generous crop at the bottom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here again the question is whether we require a perspective correction or not. (Of course if this was my photo I would apply a perspective correction …) --Aristeas (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: will support if perspective correction is applied. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Fixing the perspective won't change the contrast between the almost-oversharpening on the spires and the serious unsharpness at the right corners. Daniel Case (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning view. Cmao20 (talk) 09:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Cmao20. This might not be my favorite crop, but I can't overlook the view and the light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Musa Bay, Iran ESA372739.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2021 at 02:50:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images
Info Musa Bay, Khuzestan Province, Iran. Located at the northern end of the Persian Gulf. created by European Space Agency - uploaded by StellarHalo - nominated by StellarHalo -- StellarHalo (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- StellarHalo (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Navneetsharmaiit (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support IamMM (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 21:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Mosbatho (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 07:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Schrauben, Muttern und Unterlegscheiben -- 2020 -- 4150.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2021 at 06:11:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 06:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 06:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think this is nearly as good as File:Sechskantschrauben -- 2020 -- 3985-8.jpg. The arrangement of bolts, nuts and washers is too random, unlike the simplicity of the bolts in the other one which sort of looked like some kind of bar chart. The highlights here are a bit too much (my eyes hurt) and the surrounds haven't been cleaned as well. I don't think you've balanced the lighting in this one very well, with some parts too dark and other parts too bright -- for example the mirrored/glass surface is showing its dirty surface on the right hand side, where it should perhaps only be showing reflections. -- Colin (talk) 10:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really like the way this resembles a kind of neo-futuristic skyline (I'm thinking of things like the 1960s TV show, The Jetsons, but you could also think of the Star Trek movies or any number of other sci-fi shows or earlier architecture or dioramas with tall buildings that include circular, otherwise curvy or polygonal structures that aren't rectangular cuboids [3-dimensional rectangles]). There seem to be a number of hot pixels that it would be nice to clone out, and because the reflections of the screws, nuts and washers extend closer to the bottom than the equipment itself extends to the top, I'd like a more generous bottom crop if at all possible. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice. I just removed the hot pixel. --XRay 💬 18:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I still see one tiny blue/white hot pixel on the left, though (either that or it's a star). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've found some of these pixel at the screws, but I think the reason are the screws itself. --XRay 💬 05:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added a note. Just about due left of the bottom of the leftmost reflection that goes down almost to the bottom of the picture frame. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Thank you! That's very helpful. I found the pixel (and another one too). It's fixed now. --XRay 💬 09:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tomer T (talk) 07:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has a nice touch of Metropolis etc., and the longer I compare it with Sechskantschrauben -- 2020 -- 3985-8.jpg, the more I think it is neither worse nor better, but just different, both being very clever experiments. --Aristeas (talk) 09:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The capital city of the Planet of Robots, seen for the first time in the movie from the pod slowly coming in for a landing. I like that this one puts the tops of the screws and bolts on top; it looks more like that sort of CN Tower/Space Needle revolving-restaurant/observatory thing you see in more and more cities across the world these days. Daniel Case (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer the one Colin links to, but taken in isolation, this is a great photo nonetheless. -- Cmao20 (talk) 09:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Roodbruine schijnridderzwammen (Lepista flaccida). 22-01-2021 (d.j.b.) 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2021 at 17:29:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family : Tricholomataceae
Info (Lepista flaccida) between sheep droppings. Focus stack of 19 photos.
all by -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 07:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 10:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SM1 (talk) 11:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support IamMM (talk) 11:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 13:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 19:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding composition. Cmao20 (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 09:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the type of picture you might find in a mushroom hunter's book: note that it includes a view of the underside, which is an absolute must for mushroom identification. Of course the specimens are a bit too old for that use, but that doesn't matter here ... --El Grafo (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi#Family : Tricholomataceae

File:Bridge of Jacques-Gabriel in Blois 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2021 at 09:49:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#France
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 09:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 09:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support reminds of Toulouse --Andrei (talk) 11:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 14:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SM1 (talk) 09:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice view and reflections, the size is definitely an issue (why 4 times smaller that what the sensor is capable of?) and I'm not keen on the left crop, looks to abrupt to me. Poco a poco (talk) 11:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oppose downsizing here. The image has had a 62% scale applied, according to EXIF. While I can understand downsizing if the image was technically demanding of high ISO or harsh conditions, the only reason I can see for doing it on a single-frame landscape photo like this, is to avoid scrutiny of bad technique. While the image is nice, it doesn't look very realistic in tone, with the strong over processing that results in only mid-tones. File:Blois Loire Panorama - July 2011.jpg is much higher resolution, much sharper and was taken 10 years ago. I know the lighting/viewpoint is different, but still. -- Colin (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose All that gray and per others. I don't know how to read the EXIF for downsampling, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 20:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Meiræ 16:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Navneetsharmaiit (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Poco. Cmao20 (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tesla - 💬 11:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:White-breasted nuthatch (31195).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2021 at 06:30:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Sittidae_(Nuthatches)
Info White-breasted nuthatch on a suet feeder. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 06:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 06:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 10:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 20:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely bird. Cmao20 (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 18:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Concerns over background editing - see note. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by background editing? I didn't do anything to the suet cage that wasn't done to the whole image (though the denoising program may have denoised some areas more than others -- but that doesn't sound like what you're talking about)? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the denoise has somehow cut the background into the cage where I've marked it. These programs do strange things. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I still don't really know what you mean by "cut the background into the cage". Just that there's a bit of metal that's denoised as much as the background? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Daniel Case (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SM:!) (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 01:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 09:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Sittidae_(Nuthatches)

File:Football freestyle 2013 Masters epee t170924.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2021 at 17:06:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Sports#Individual_sports
Info created by Jastrow - uploaded by Jastrow - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just doesn't seem enough out of the ordinary to me. Daniel Case (talk) 04:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:South Georgia Island as seen by Sentinel-2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2021 at 15:43:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images
Info South Georgia. created by European Space Agency - uploaded by BugWarp - nominated by StellarHalo -- StellarHalo (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- StellarHalo (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BugWarp (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've been enjoying these satellite photo nominations. Very interesting to find the wow in generic NASA and ESA imagery! —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mosbatho (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Percival Kestreltail, it takes a good eye to sort through satellite photos and find the ones of outstanding composition. Cmao20 (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 18:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 22:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Buidhe (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 01:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 14:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --vip (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Swamp rose-mallow.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2021 at 19:37:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Plants#Family_:_Malvaceae
Info: swamp rose-mallow (Hibiscus moscheutos) -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition and quality. Cmao20 (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A nice sight on a winter day. Daniel Case (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Family_:_Malvaceae

File:Pano Parc du réservoir Beaudet.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2021 at 01:02:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes#Subfamily_:_Anserinae_(Swans_and_Geese)
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the photo was successful.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 16:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it is full of stitching errors. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just not special enough. Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support IamMM (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support But the description is a bit poor --Llez (talk) 08:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mildly interesting, but per Daniel Case & The Cosmonaut. Certainly a challenging subject to stitch together, but I wonder if it is really worth the effort compared to a single shot with a wide-angle lens ... --El Grafo (talk) 10:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Nice idea and superb resolution but the light is quite dull and I would prefer to see more of the panorama on the right, the crop looks arbitrary as it is. Cmao20 (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree about the right crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Daniel Case--Ermell (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 12:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Telc 20.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2021 at 09:34:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures
Info John of Nepomuk Statue with 'backdrop' of Church Towers and Seminary of Telč adjacent to Ulický Lake - created, uploaded, nominated by Scotch Mist -- SM1 (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SM1 (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not sure the composition is working, with the statue figure looking out-of-frame. Not feeling much wow: just a QI. -- Colin (talk) 12:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Colin: Perhaps it might work better if the fact that John was deliberately drowned for adhering to his religious principles is considered? --SM1 (talk) 12:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I actually kind of like the composition. We have a lot of straight-on shots of grand buildings, and the statue in the foreground makes this one a bit different. Does it need a very slight perspective correction? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Rhododendrites: Thank you for your positive comment and appreciation of photo attributes beyond straightforward image composition and minimum technical qualities (which of course must be at a high level to attain 'Featured Picture' status). The different angles of the buildings renders roof-lines at different angles but I experimented previously with a number of slight perspective adjustments and this image seemed the best 'compromise' overall. --SM1 (talk) 11:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Rhododendrites. --Aristeas (talk) 11:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Light is too average. It lacks wow -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Complex but satisfying composition. Cmao20 (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. I don't find this the easiest composition to love, but I think it deserves credit for going out a little bit on a limb and does work even if not comfortably and even if you don't know about the religious metaphor Scotch Mist was thinking of. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 12:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:An Army CH-47 Chinook helicopter during a training exercise (210120-A-II094-096M).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2021 at 16:34:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
Info created by Elena Baladelli - uploaded & nominated by ToprakM -- --ToprakM ^✉ 16:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --ToprakM ^✉ 16:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A spectacle, wow! Technically it is also a good one. --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe I'm paranoid, but doubt if the rainbow is true. --A.Savin 02:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC) Well I also have my doubts, but I don't know how to check it --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Even with the reflection on the pilot's window? Tomer T (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a U.S. Army photo from www.defense.gov. They are not usually in the habit of doctoring their photos, they record events, and from time to time they come across unusual things because of their many missions. I doubt very much they go about adding pretty rainbows to their photos. Check out the source. --Cart (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks for clarifying. --A.Savin 01:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Michiel and comments by Cart and Tomer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Navneetsharmaiit (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - would make for a useful propaganda image, but it's hard not to support this kind of serendipity. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral reminds a meme --Andrei (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support IamMM (talk) 11:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great shot, but I don't really dig the editing here. Feels like the contrast has been pushed quite a bit, crushing the blacks in the shadows. Deep shadows like this would make some sense in direct sunlight. But under the diffuse lighting we have here, they do not look convincing to me (also makes the sharpening haloes at the bottom of the fuselage and along the ropes even more visible). The colors of the rainbow also look off on my screen: there's some blue/violet adjacent to the red on the left, yellow and green are somewhat missing, and the clouds to the right of the violet look more blue again (less gray than in the rest of the image). Looks loke some local color adjustments were done not only on the rainbow (which is fine) but also on some of the surrounding clouds, giving the rainbow a blue-ish glow. --El Grafo (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 19:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Ermell (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In addition to the issues with the lighting El Grafo points out, I am just not wowed by this compositionally. The chopper is tilted, the jeep tilted even more, and the rainbow is off to the side ... it all feels very random. The coincidence of these three things being in the same picture does not, to me, by itself make it an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The coposition is amazing but the contrast is pushed too high and the blacks are too deep. Cmao20 (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel --StellarHalo (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tesla - 💬 11:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 20:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:TR Pamukkale Laodicea asv2020-02 img11.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2021 at 12:33:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Turkey
Info Main street's ruins of Laodicea on the Lycus, Turkey ---- all by A.Savin --A.Savin 12:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 12:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Consistent DoF -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really beautiful. --Aristeas (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 20:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Settlements#Turkey

File:Weißstorch IMG 5642.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2021 at 15:47:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds # Fam.Ciconiidae (Storcks)>
Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Nice photo. Is the bird asleep? Its eye looks partly closed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, the bird is not sleeping. --Fischer.H (talk) 10:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SM1 (talk) 11:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Light is less than average (obvious from the previous version in the history, underexposed and currently too harsh), and the image looks cluttered with the busy background -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Basile, and I actually prefer the original version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Basile, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile --Ermell (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, I'll have to agree with the other opposers. --El Grafo (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 20:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:...yamuna ji! (32382324577).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2021 at 13:44:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#India
Info created by lensnmatter - uploaded and nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Amazing photo and definitely has the wow for FP but I was a bit disappointed by the number of compression artefacts when viewed at full size. Others may disagree, but I think an FP should aim for higher technical quality than that. Cmao20 (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose Beautiful and subtle image but, per CMao, technically subpar. Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ceiling of Shah Mosque at Fatima Masumeh Shrine, Qom, Iran.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2021 at 14:53:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings/Ceilings#Iran
Info Amir Pashaei seems to be taking a break from Commons atm, it's been a while since we've seen one of his photos, but I think FPC is better with his work. This seems sufficiently different from any of his other FPs. It is the ceiling counterpart to this FP, but I actually think it is better. created by Amirpashaei - uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks a lot for nomination and supporting dear Mr Cmao20.--Amir Pashaei (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow and envy. --A.Savin 16:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW! Buidhe (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vibrant colors, huge resolution, well done -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Captured wonderfully --Navneetsharmaiit (talk) 07:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Again like a tale from One Thousand and One Nights. I hope Amir Pashaei is well … --Aristeas (talk) 09:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks a lot dear Mr Aristeas. i'm fine. --Amir Pashaei (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Thank you, Mr. Amir Pashaei! I was a little worried because one reads bad things about the pandemic situation in Iran; I am very glad that you are doing well. All the best, --Aristeas (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Thanks for your kindness. I got infected but I recovered quickly. Thanks again dear Mr Aristeas.--Amir Pashaei (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm glad you're OK! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wow and technically very good. -- Colin (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Colin--Ermell (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 01:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --C messier (talk) 09:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impresive --Wilfredor (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 14:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support I can forgive all the ringing around the chandelier lights since it's a long exposure. Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Colorful sky with pink clouds reflecting in the water of a paddy field and mountains at dusk Vang Vieng Laos.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2021 at 14:53:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Laos
Info I have had my eye on this photo ever since I nominated this from the same series. I don't know if you'll find it too similar, but for me it's one of those subjects that deserves another FP, especially since this one differs considerably in terms of the light conditions. I really love the gentle pinks and blues of the sunset sky - they are more subtle than in the other photo but if anything I actually find this one more beautiful, partly because the colours are less 'in your face'. See what you think. created by Basile Morin - uploaded by Basile Morin - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support outstanding for me. --Ivar (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you very much, Cmao20 -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Navneetsharmaiit (talk) 07:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. (And a candidate for the competition in the longest file name.) --XRay 💬 14:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found two advantages of creating long file names: in a series, no number needed, each picture has its own words depicting the content. Also very useful in a gallery: no necessity to copy/paste the description, just the file name is enough :-) Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The simurgh arrives to assist with the birth of Rustam.jpg , featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2021 at 18:07:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/People#Groups
Info created by Muhammad Zaman - uploaded and nominated by Hanooz -- Hanooz 18:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info on Wikipedia: Rostam#Birth and early life
Support -- Hanooz 18:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really beautiful. --Gnosis (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 22:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Buidhe (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Extremely high level of detail, and beautiful -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile. --Aristeas (talk) 09:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cbrescia (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/People#Groups

File:זריחה באגמון חולה בזמן נדידת העגורים.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2021 at 22:03:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Israel
Info created by Tomere - uploaded by Tomere - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't downloaded it to be able to say for sure but my hunch is that this is Overprocessed. It looks like it was edited to be a monotone. If so, I firmly believe the original would have more EV. Buidhe (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely a spectacular image. Looking at the others in the series, taken around the same time, it seems like this one might be a bit more saturated than some others but it otherwise the bright yellow light with the haze doesn't seem so unbelievable. Should probably fix those two lens flares, though, and maybe a little CCW tilt. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~There are two reflection spots at the bottom~~ -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, please remove the two spots. But otherwise nice. -- -donald- (talk) 06:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it fixed? --Andrei (talk) 09:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your fix has altered the colours of the image. It is more orange now and lacks an embedded colour profile. What did you use? Also the crop is not necessary if the other spot can be cloned out. -- Colin (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, reverted for now. Currently, my computer can only run Microsoft Photos editor. --Andrei (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done - photoshop's spot healing brush seemed to do an adequate job — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you very much for your help! Looks like my private laptop is hopelessly broken and will need a battery replacement --Andrei (talk) 09:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --C messier (talk) 09:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This composition works for me not as a linear arabesque but as a composition with layers plus rays of sunlight. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 14:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 11:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Olomouc 08.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2021 at 17:51:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural_elements
Info Astrological Clock and Upper Mosaic at Town Hall in Olomouc - created, uploaded, nominated by Scotch Mist -- SM:!) (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SM:!) (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great motif, but can you please restore the original resolution? Downsampling may make an image appear sharper, but at the cost of useful detail. The original photo is surely less sharp at full size, but that doesn't make it worse! Cmao20 (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Cmao20: Thank you for your review and support. I rarely downsize an image but on this occasion I felt it was justified because it appeared that the details of the mosaic were slightly blurred, perhaps due to reflected natural light from the surfaces of the mosaic fragments themselves. I would be interested in your opinion, when you have time, as to whether the previously uploaded image, which is at the original resolution, is indeed better overall?--SM:!) (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scotch Mist, thanks for your reply. The thing about downsizing is you never know what the end-user is going to use a photo for, they might want, let's say, to use it for a large print, in which case extra resolution is definitely helpful. I agree that the photo is slightly blurry at full size, but put it this way, if you provide the higher resolution, then anyone who wants a pinpoint sharp image can just downsize it themselves client-side. All that downsizing a photo does is reduce the amount of usable detail. This is why downsizing is usually frowned upon at FP. For me, the original photo is definitely FP. You may get some criticism for the blur, but you will also get criticism for downsizing unfortunately. But most reviewers here are sufficiently thoughtful as to realise that they can't expect the same pinpoint sharpness from a 20mpx image as they can from a 5mpx image. Cmao20 (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Cmao20: Thanks for your detailed comments - have now reverted to the previous original resolution version of this image and will be interested to read any comments that may arise! --SM:!) (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Just too unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks to those who took the time to review and provide comments. --SM:!) (talk) 10:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black-fronted Dotterel 2 - Bow Bowing.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2021 at 13:33:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Family_:_Charadriidae_(Plovers)
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Ivar (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SM:!) (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Special light -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 01:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 13:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hanooz 16:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 09:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Family_:_Charadriidae_(Plovers)

File:Cerussite - Nakhlak mine, Anarak, Esfahan, Iran.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2021 at 06:15:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Rocks_and_minerals#Minerals
Info all by Ivar (talk) 06:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Note the size and don't judge this as wanting because it's not fully sharp at closeish range at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 20:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Rocks_and_minerals#Minerals

File:Gomphus pulchellus (50849318483).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2021 at 17:52:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
Info created by Gilles San Martin - uploaded by Junior Jumper - nominated by Junior Jumper -- Junior Jumper (formerly Tæ) 17:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Junior Jumper (formerly Tæ) 17:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 05:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SM1 (talk) 11:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 19:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cmao20 (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I'm going to dissent. We have featured so many great photos of dragonflies that we can afford to be picky, and I think the combination of the lack of strong contrast between the insect and the background, the lack of a compelling linear arabesque and the unsharpness of part of the abdomen make this very good photo less than great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Agree per Ikan. This image certainly is QI but needs more separation of the wings from the background to be FP. --GRDN711 (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan -- Karelj (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pyrit-with-hematite-01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2021 at 06:55:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Rocks and minerals#Minerals
Info created and uploaded by Cccefalon - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 06:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 06:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me a well stacked photo. --Famberhorst (talk) 07:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice, but posterized, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 07:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Famberhorst. Where posterization? --A.Savin 12:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see abrupt changes from one colour tone to another everywhere on the mineral. --Ivar (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --StellarHalo (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really interesting rock. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 05:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Like Ivar, I think something has gone wrong with the highlights/reflections. Not really seeing the wow here. -- Colin (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 15:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin and Ivar. Daniel Case (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The size and the origin would be interesting --Llez (talk) 09:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great. Cmao20 (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Rocks and minerals#Minerals

File:Marsh Boardwalk panorama.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2021 at 01:16:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Ontario
Info: Marsh Boardwalk, Point Pelee National Park, Canada. All by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I find the lighting/white balance a bit cold, but on balance I feel that it deserves the FP star. Cmao20 (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No great composition, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose sorry, imho special light is needed with this compo. --Ivar (talk) 07:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special for FP nomination. -- Karelj (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 11:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:George Floyd protest at Brooklyn Public Library (02916c).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2021 at 21:26:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info Both sides of a screen which sits outside Brooklyn Public Library immediately following a George Floyd rally and protest. On one side, someone seems to have cut out a stencil just for this screen, so that the light of the screen shines through "George Floyd was lynched by police". On the other side, someone smashed the screen and someone else tagged "George Floyd" below it. Among the pictures I took of the protests, I've seen these two used by external media somewhat often, but to illustrate different aspects of the events, as you might imagine. As they are different perspectives on the same subject, taken moments apart, I decided to try to put them together, and found the result interesting. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works compositionally per nom, also of obvious documentary interest. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: vandalized library is massively anti-wow for me. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Understand the expressed concern of The Cosmonaut but the image provokes interest in fundamental issues related to the death of George Floyd which to me is a significant attribute of this creative 'composition'! --SM1 (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, photographically. A sensible subject maybe, but both pictures are unimpressive for me. The layout with the heavy line in the center also looks awkward in my eyes -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just an observation: we have a ton of pictures about this huge, spectacular (in the literal sense) protest movement and zero FPs. Social movement-related pictures in general don't do so well here typically. Regardless of whether this passes, I'd encourage people to look for other candidates. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile; good idea, but doesn't quite work compositionally.--Peulle (talk) 09:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Probably FP level quality but I find the vandalism distasteful and I'm not sure I can judge the photo objectively. Cmao20 (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kritzolina (talk • contribs) 21:27, 3 February 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --El Grafo (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others -- Karelj (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile Morin and Rhododendrites. --Fischer.H (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably someone else? :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination As usual, I'm disappointed at the reception of protest/social movement pictures. Oh well. Hopefully others can dig around and find something to nominate that I haven't seen yet. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:210120-D-WD757-1080 (50860527893).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2021 at 13:27:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1990-now
Info created by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Carlos M. Vazquez II - uploaded by User:Tm - nominated by User:AllegedlyHuman -- AllegedlyHuman (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- AllegedlyHuman (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not at all spectacular. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry,per Ikan --Co mmon ists 14:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry,per Ikan -- Seven Pandas (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I agree, nice photo but the composition is not outstanding and the bottom crop is not ideal. Cmao20 (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fernsicht von der Belchenflue.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2021 at 13:50:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland
Info View from the Belchenflue to the Bernese Alps in a distance of about 100 km. The Belchenflue is a mountain of the Jura, located on the border between the Swiss cantons of Basel-Landschaft and Solothurn. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The mountains and clouds are ok, but the composition includes too much landscape that is still in the dark. The mountains are also only slightly lit. Here the clouds form such a dense blanket that it is similar to the view from an aircraft, rather than the best such views (e.g. this and this). So overall this is not take at the right time or from the right viewpoint. -- Colin (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--182.69.7.174 17:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC) No vote from ip --Co mmon ists 19:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Stunning light although it looks like the light might be even better on the right hand side which is not included in the composition. Overall a little bit dark for FP to me per Colin's point, I think I would prefer a wider panorama. Cmao20 (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin and Cmao. Overall, it's just too static. Daniel Case (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Inflorescence of Anacamptis pyramidalis 18.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2021 at 07:21:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family_:_Orchidaceae
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 07:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 07:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very good quality, suitable as a QI. Lacks wow-factor to make it a FP. Similar to several other images in the category. --Tagooty (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Flash wasn't the best choice here. --Ivar (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Holy SURP Hovhannes Church.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2021 at 21:51:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Iran
Info created and uploaded by Farzin Izaddoust dar – nominated by Hanooz -- Hanooz 21:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hanooz 21:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I hope this isn't downsampled, but it's an amazing image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Wonderful but downsized -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Per Basile --Co mmon ists 10:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support because of the composition and the atmosphere --Tesla - 💬 11:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful - Benh (talk) 11:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support 6 Mpx landscape photo has to be very special to deserve a FP star and this one surely is. --Ivar (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Wonderful composition, but low resolution and I think, low sharpness. --XRay 💬 14:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ivar, it's small but this is one of those instances where the composition and motif are enough to offset that. Cmao20 (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree it is small, and I would encourage the creator to upload a full size version. But the composition and lighting are too good. Those two things are the essentials to photography, and we've seen too many boring photos that think they can get a gold star with mega pixels and focus stacking. -- Colin (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support is this, one of the Most Famous Churches in Iran? --Gnosis (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. Hanooz 02:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per Cmao20 and others --SM:!) (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support IamMM (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pinot Grigio-20201027-RM-114053.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2021 at 22:44:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food_and_drink#Fruits_and_raw_vegetables
Info Pinot Gris grape. Focus stack of 12 frames. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great resolution, and they really popped out at me in the thumbnail. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 09:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 10:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --XRay 💬 14:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I suddenly have a craving for grapes... —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The light reveals pretty shades of color -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 14:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SM:!) (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mmm ... I can practically taste the wine, even if it usually identifies as white and I have never seen grapes so red in their redness. Daniel Case (talk) 04:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food_and_drink#Fruits_and_raw_vegetables

File:Jameh Mosque of Hamadan 2018-01-18.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2021 at 21:20:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Iran
Info created and uploaded by Hosein ronasi – nominated by Hanooz -- Hanooz 21:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hanooz 21:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support IamMM (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a special place. I've added some notes to the image highlighting some stitching errors (I think!) and a white line that appears near the top. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In one of the posters on the pole, encourages men to cover up their women. Can't support the message. --Gnosis (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Documenting a message != supporting it, and is the absence of such a message a reason to support photos of Catholic churches when the Catholic church denies women an equal right to become priests, or of all mosques because to my knowledge (and I'd welcome correction if I'm wrong), no sect or school of Islam allows women to be imams? Yet I don't think you'd support disallowing photos of Catholic churches or mosques in general from being featured. I realize this kind of thing can be a delicate issue, and I can understand the argument that photos of a subject you find immoral are or can be depending on the nature of the presentation immoral for transmitting immoral content, but I think the most I've done when a photo of a subject I found abhorrent was nominated was to comment on why I couldn't vote for it, as in the case of the heroic equestrian statue of notorious Jew-murderer Khmelnitskiy in Kiev. I didn't oppose the nomination on the basis of my disapproval of the subject. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Wonderful light but due to the sum of technical shortcomings no FP for me.--Ermell (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Hanooz 09:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zhuravlyne ozero.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2021 at 10:46:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Ukraine
Info created & uploaded by Medoffer - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Wikipedia, this camera has only a 12 MP sensor, and this is a really good photo, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish there were more space at the bottom, but an amazing view nonetheless. Cmao20 (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 01:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unbalanced, almost-but-not-quite-centered composition - could at least crop a bit tighter on the right ... --El Grafo (talk) 12:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pavlo1 (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, not the best crop --Andrei (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, now wow. --Fischer.H (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tartu Landmarks 07.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2021 at 14:34:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures
Info Flags of Estonia at Tartu Town Hall behind fountain with shadowed sculpture of "Kissing Students" discretely embracing beneath 'umbrella' - created, uploaded, nominated by Scotch Mist -- SM:!) (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SM:!) (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Subject in the shadow and chaotic composition with tight crop at the top -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Basile Morin: Although new to FP it has quickly become evident that high quality beautiful photographs taken under near-ideal lighting conditions and geometrically composed according to accepted standards (sometimes artistically) are preferred over images that attempt to tell a story beyond that of a two-dimensional photograph but are considered 'technically inferior' in some way (sometimes deliberately to convey a particular message). Perhaps there should be a 'new category' for good quality images with the merit that they successfully (which admittedly may not be the case here) provoke more contemplation of the thoughts behind creating the image rather than have them simply dismissed as "chaotic compositions". It is less than thirty years since Estonia, with 'independence', stepped out of the shadows of totalitarian Soviet rule but Tartu is geographically less than 50Km from Russia. --SM:!) (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scotch Mist: Not sure to understand you. But in addition not being FP-level in my view, I'm afraid your work should be deleted per COM:FOP Estonia because no FoP allowed when the sculpture is the main subject -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination @Basile Morin: It is regrettable that you apparently would prefer to have this image (which IMHO does not conflict with Estonian FOP criteria) deleted, rather than constructively respond to the point I made that your assertion of "chaotic composition" is perhaps a somewhat superficial assessment. --SM:!) (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Instead of saying I do not review constructively, just remove your {{Withdraw}} above and wait for more votes. You'll see. Each contributor is subjective, OK? Let others review your picture, and you'll have the fair verdict. Secondly, I have not yet nominated your image for deletion, but I repeat this is out of FoP in my opinion. To finish, after many years evaluating all kinds of photographs everyday in FPC I'm certainly much more experienced than you, saying my assessment is "superficial". Once again, let this image run until the end of the voting period, and you'll see what happens consensually (if it's not deleted before). Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Basile Morin: As I stated from the outset I am "new to FP" but you appear to have made my point as an "experienced" evaluator, which I respect, that more profound considerations (or symbolism) are not currently assessed as adding merit to a photograph for FP so there would be no logic in removing my {{Withdraw}} - thank you for taking the time to review this image and your further comments (although unfortunately it appears that my words have been mis-interpreted, perhaps because of inexact language translations). --SM:!) (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Symbolism counts, if we can see it. I think I speak accurately if I say that at FPC, we judge photos on what we can see, not on whatever symbolism you intended to express that we can't see. The other thing I'd say is that you have to have a thick skin and be patient if you choose to nominate work at FPC. We are judging whether the nominated photos are among the very best on the site, not merely whether they're good or, say, top 20-25 percentile. Many of the reviewers here have strong opinions, but it's also not uncommon, as you've seen, for people not to express an opinion at all when they're unsure or for whatever reason prefer not to. I think all of us understand frustration, but I think you've withdrawn prematurely, and I also hope that you continue nominating photos here, though keeping in mind some of what I've written here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iglesia de San Sebastián, Ponta Delgada, isla de San Miguel, Azores, Portugal, 2020-07-29, DD 117-119 HDR.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2021 at 22:08:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Portugal
Info Facade of the church of St Sebastian, Ponta Delgada, São Miguel Island, Azores, Portugal. The church, built between 1531 and 1547, is one of the landmarks of the capital of the island. Note that there is already a FP of the exterior of this church that became FP in a set nomination. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Junior Jumper (formerly Tæ) 13:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality. The angle is IMO sufficiently different from the other FP. Cmao20 (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Heavy wide-angle distortion. See the round stone features on the roofline and compare to the other photo. -- Colin (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? elements that should be round on the top look round to me. Poco a poco (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Nothing else is wrong with the image AFAICS, but Colin does have a point when you compare the two images. Daniel Case (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Salar de Pujsa, Chile, 2016-02-08, DD 04-07 PAN.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2021 at 22:08:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Chile#Antofagasta_Region
Info Salar de Pujsa, Antofagasta Region with some of the volcans in the area in the background, specially Cerro Pili (6,046 metres (19,836 ft)) on the left and Cerro Colachi (5,631 metres (18,474 ft)) to the right (see image notes), north of Chile. The salt pan is located 4,500 metres (14,800 ft) over the sea level and has a surface of 14 square kilometres (5.4 sq mi). c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great Panorama. --Gnosis (talk) 07:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful, and it's nice to see another one of your Chilean salt pan photos. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 09:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp and very beautiful panorama without any obvious stitching errors. Cmao20 (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 18:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 18:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry. First it's not really an impressive compo. I mean, it didn't have to be this wide a FOV to show mostly the same thing across the horizontal scope of the frame. Second, it is (another) of your panorama with a very obvious broken horizon (it "falls of" on the right side). And third... the light, flat and harsh. - Benh (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's always a mistery to me why some veteran and demanding reviewers that show up from time to time mainly get attracted by my noms. If you don't like it, fine, there is not much I can do about it. Regarding the horizon on the right, I agree, there is some room for improvement, will upload an update later. Poco a poco (talk) 10:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no need to look too much into it. I just happen to like panorama, so I will spot these things quickly and since it's a recurrent thing, I thought I'd just drop a word. If I really voted, u'd certainly be less happy ;) - Benh (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  
  A bigger mystery is how come despite being told countless times that your horizons are broken, you still submit these to FPC. It's not even subtle and someone as veteran as you should begin to spot these issues. - Benh (talk) 12:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Benh I've uploaded a version with a correction of the horizon in the far right. From that to "broken" there is a long distance, but who cares, I do not. --Poco a poco (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Poco a poco: It's now noticeably leaning to the left. And try not to minimize critics (I don't think I'm biased). That's how you improve on things. I consider something broken when It can be spotted just by scrolling over it. - Benh (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - Poco, please stop making personal attacks about the reviewers. If you disagree with the review, disagree with the review, not with the few people who still dare to oppose some of your nominations. -- Colin (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment imho the sky looks oversaturated (or excessively polarized?). Even white clouds are turning blue on the edges. --Ivar (talk) 09:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't polarized the sky or apply any special settings, do we need to start this discussion over? we have discussed it several times Poco a poco (talk) 10:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there was no need to lash out. One link to the discussion would have been more appropriate. --Ivar (talk) 11:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ivar you can have a look here or here (it is though funny that there was not discussion here, here, here or here) but as I'll not be able to make any further changes in the file I reduce the saturation to skip possible repetitive discussions here --Poco a poco (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Benh. Composition is arbitrary, with left side particularly oddly cropped, right side looks wonky and lower contrast vs right. Sky is posterised. -- Colin (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These are the votes you must really enjoy. I'm sorry, Colin, you'll have to look for another victim to whom you can dump your frustration or whatever. I'm gone.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Poco a poco (talk • contribs) 21:45, 4 February 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question I do like this a lot, but see my note about the rocks in that area of the foreground. Is there some organic explanation for this? Or if not, is it correctable? Daniel Case (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The ottoman's topkapi...... (18389018372).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2021 at 12:32:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements
Info created by lensnmatter - uploaded/nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 12:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 12:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice photo and beautiful motif but tilted, not quite centered, and resolution is low for an FP. Cmao20 (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination IamMM (talk) 12:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bedkhem Church, Isfahan, Iran.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2021 at 08:37:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Iran
Info created by Amirpashaei - uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by Amirpashaei -- Amir Pashaei (talk) 08:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Amir Pashaei (talk) 08:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I Participated in the WLM with more than 10 pictures like this image. but I wonder why some weak pictures like this picture should selected as 4th picture and all of my pictures expect one of them should removed. the 4th picture in Iran WLM has been nominated for deletion and you can see the technical problems and weakness. I mailed to WLM organizer. I want to rejudging with fare and justice. These kinds of behaviors and judgments just Reduces WLM and wikipedia credit and can Discourage participant for sharing their images.--Amir Pashaei (talk) 08:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Amir Pashaei, this candidate talk page probably isn't the best place to complain about WLM, but I think many FP regulars agree with you in puzzlement at the choices that the finalist judges often make. Also I believe some national WLMs try to ensure prizes are distributed among several winners rather than one person winning several, though others do not do that at all. Someone on a photo forum once said something like "If you win a photographic competition, the judges are wise and have an excellent eye for a great picture, but if you lose then the judges are ignorant fools who clearly need their eyes tested". It is a bit random really, and always has been. -- Colin (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess the same applies for the promotion process here ;) - Benh (talk) 08:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The photographer of 4th place of Iran WLM is unknown and copied of another site!!!!! in the page of Iran WLM Diego Delso Has been introduced as one of the judges and Simultaneous he has participated at Portugal and Germany WLM. How can this possible? This is against the law of WLM.--Amir Pashaei (talk) 08:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unfortunately some contributors use other people's photos illegally, and even FPC has had a problem with that in the past. If a photo is illegal then it will get deleted and perhaps the prize will be rearranged. Many Commons FP photographers have helped with parts of the judging of WLM in countries where they have not participated. There are 230,000 images uploaded to WLM 2020, so they need volunteers to help. -- Colin (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - The name of the photographer of 4th picture is a site and this is very easy to find for everyone. the 7th picture of Iran WLM was taken from Laft village and this village not in Iran's monuments list. .The 9th picture of Iran WLM is just a Geological phenomenon and obviously not a historical monument made by human. The 10th picture of Iran WLM is just taken from a normal wooden bridge and this bridge is not in the Iran's monuments list too. 4 picture from 10, featured wrongly. how can this possible????!!!!!--Amir Pashaei (talk) 07:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        These are issues to take up with WLM Iran or at Commons talk:Wiki Loves Monuments. -- Colin (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please, speaking for everyone on this side of the Atlantic between Canada and Mexico, we just got done with a couple of months of this sort of thing ... Daniel Case (talk) 05:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi all. I'm one of the organizers of WLM Iran. I have asked Amirpashaei to operate based on the assumption of good faith and I and other organizers of WLM-IR have been in contact with them answering their questions. I would like to ask Amirpashaei to continue conversations on the threads that are already open with us, instead of going around with an implicit accusatory tone towards certain choices by our jury. I am happy to engage so long as the conversations stay civil and respectful towards everyone who stepped up in a particularly difficult year 2020 was to make WLM-IR happen. --LilyOfTheWest (talk) 06:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 07:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks a bit tilted, but gorgeous as usual. - Benh (talk) 08:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Benh. a perspective correction would ruin it, so I'm ok with it as-is. Cmao20 (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per Cmao20 --SM:!) (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eburna lienardii 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2021 at 11:19:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Shells#Family : Ancillariidae
Info created and uploaded by Llez - nominated by Commonists -- Co mmon ists 11:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Co mmon ists 11:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nomination. For those who are interested: The genus Eburna comprises a total of only 3 species, besides this only Eburna balteata and Eburna glabrata --Llez (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 17:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 07:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gorgeous colours. Cmao20 (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support IamMM (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice sea-salted caramel vibe this time ... Daniel Case (talk) 05:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Shells#Family : Ancillariidae

File:Mars place at Altay Mountain, Russia.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2021 at 11:11:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Russia
Info created and uploaded by KpokeJlJla - nominated by Commonists -- Co mmon ists 11:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Co mmon ists 11:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Most parts are blurred; probably camera shake. --A.Savin 00:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The photograph should be sharper. --XRay 💬 07:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree.--Peulle (talk) 09:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I'm not sure it's camera shake, I just don't think the lens is the sharpest. I like the colours, but the composition looks a little arbitrary and I think a wider panorama would be appropriate here. The quality should probably be a little better for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 11:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Un matou de Provence.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2021 at 05:03:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family : Felidae (Felids)
Info created and uploaded by Isasza - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 05:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 05:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question Nice enough cat picture, but what makes it great to you? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: Basically the composition: the tabby cat harmoniously contrasts with the leafy gray ground giving the picture a wild mood. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 15:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really don't see it that way, but I appreciate your expressing that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Blurred foreground ivy; coloured thing in background; Cat not looking at camera. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacks wow factor for me. --Peulle (talk) 09:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice picture but I don't think it stands out amongst 'cat photos.' Cmao20 (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle and Cmao20. If you look at the 3 domestic cat FPs, probably all 3 have better compositions and certainly all focus more squarely on the cat. File:Tired 20-year-old cat.jpg also has the element of pathos because the viewer can sympathize with the tired-looking old cat. Plus, there are a bunch more photos at Category:Felis silvestris catus that are more compelling than this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose AS per others --SM:!) (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Покровський собор зимового вечора.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2021 at 11:10:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Ukraine
Info Winner of Wiki Loves Monuments 2020 in Ukraine, created by Ekaterina Polischuk - uploaded by Ekaterina Polischuk - nominated by Pavlo1 -- Pavlo1 (talk) 11:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pavlo1 (talk) 11:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice one, but quality should be at COM:QI level. --A.Savin 00:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin. Details missing, lights overexposed, JPEG artifacts, ... --XRay 💬 07:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 09:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really want to support this, but per A. Savin, the NR has gone too far and the detail is not just there. Cmao20 (talk) 11:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose A beautiful scene but yup ... once you look at it full-size it is clearly not even a QI technically, per Cmao and A. Savin. Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:EL foto Ellervee - MG 9138-2 - võrku seadmas.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2021 at 11:43:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida#Family : Araneidae (Orb-weaver Spiders)
Info created by Edvard Ellervee - uploaded & nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 11:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 11:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very little in focus. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The rest doesn't need to be in focus nor would it make the image better. The idea is to specifically show on how that webmaking part functions. Kruusamägi (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose But the most important part of the glands is unfortunately blurred.--Ermell (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose mainly per Ermell. I like the image and I get the idea, but I do feel that the DoF is too shallow. Cmao20 (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I do like the image (we selected it as the winner in the Wikipedia category of our 2020 nature photo competition), but maybe then it just isn't FP. Kruusamägi (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anthidium manicatum (50868517517).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2021 at 13:19:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera
Info created by Gilles San Martin - uploaded by Junior Jumper - nominated by Junior Jumper -- Junior Jumper (formerly Tæ) 13:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Junior Jumper (formerly Tæ) 13:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good and sharp focus stack. --Ivar (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ivar. Cmao20 (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 19:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Many CAs (far left and bottom right), else excellent. --Aristeas (talk) 09:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poorly executed focus stack. Part of leg cropped in foreground. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera#Family : Megachilidae (Leafcutting Bees)

File:Aschaffenburg Rlwy Bridge Nilkheim.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2021 at 21:12:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Transport#Rail tracks
Info created by User:KaiBorgeest - uploaded by User:KaiBorgeest - nominated by User:KaiBorgeest -- KaiBorgeest (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KaiBorgeest (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice photo but it could do with being a bit sharper and I think the light is a little harsh. Cmao20 (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Level crossings are for crossing with care, not for photography. "sheer stupidity" "unthinkably stupid": "No photo opportunity is worth risking your life for." -- Colin (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, why actually not? I don't think that everyone who takes pictures on tracks is stupid by default, though of course it's always at your own risk and you need highest possible attention. But I mean, maybe the train is just gone few seconds ago, or maybe the railroad was out of order at that time due to maintenance, construction or something. If so, was it then safe to take pictures? Obviously, yes. (I have several similar pictures, such as this one, and you can be sure I know well what I'm doing.) If you just said "no wow", I would agree, btw. --A.Savin 21:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those words in quotes aren't mine. Those are the railway or police comments. FP is about our "finest" work, and inspires others to do similar, or encourages the photographer to go back and take a better one. We should not be encouraging life-risk taking photography. Doing this is illegal in my country for a good reason. People die on level crossings in the UK every year. -- Colin (talk) 11:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see the point in those arguments, but on the other hand: Following your argument, featuring something like File:Palm Beach County Park Lantana Airport photo D Ramey Logan.jpg could encourage people do to stupid, dangerous (to others) and illegal things with their drones. Featuring something like File:Aircraft Rescue Firefighting training.jpg, do we encourage people to get close to a burning building? Do stupid things on a safari? Approach a hungry wolf? Enter a battle zone? Sure, most people know lions are dangerous and many are not aware how dangerous a train might be. But that's what {{Tracks are for trains}} is for, imho. --El Grafo (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, File:Palm Beach County Park Lantana Airport photo D Ramey Logan.jpg is not taken with a drone. --A.Savin 11:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The point is, that this is not immediately apparent from the picture. The same goes for the other examples, they were probably all taken in a completely safe manner. The candidate picture might have been taken in a completely safe manner as well, and we'd still slap {{Tracks are for trains}} on it (for good reasons). Question is: does the bare potential for people doing something stupid trying to re-create a picture they saw on FP mean we cannot feature a great image? Especially when there's already a very clear warning template on the file description page? --El Grafo (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it follows at all. I looked at the geolocation -- it was taken on a level crossing, not on a bridge or off to the side. Professionals taking photos of their jobs, or 500mm telephoto shots of distant wildlife? Of course there is risk in life. But nobody is shouting that the army photographer to stop being a dick and nobody writes letters to the BBC asking them to stop showing those reckless wildlife documentaries. The police officer saying this is stupid is the one who has to visit your mum to say her son has been killed trying to get a better railway photo for Commons, as their last one didn't pass FP and the reviewers suggested he try again in better light and to make sure this time they stand right in the middle of the tracks so the photo is symmetrical.... -- Colin (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an observation ... if you really want to take a cool picture of the tracks receding into the distance from a grade crossing, well, maybe you can follow the example of this QI I took, in which I am adroitly standing between two tracks. I should also further distinguish these photos by noting that mine was taken not only at a vehicle crossing, but one in a busy downtown (actually two downtowns, as I'm on the municipal border between Rutherford and East Rutherford—not that that really matters as far as safety goes), right next to the station. Daniel Case (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Compared to the other FPs of rail tracks we promoted in the past, this one is really average. I agree with Cmao20 the light is harsh. Is there a mean you try again under more favorable light conditions? 🌅 -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Andrei (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per others --SM:!) (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not much WOW!-effect here for me, and the vanishing point being slightly but noticeably off-center does not help either. --El Grafo (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In addition to the aesthetic shortcomings, and the principled opposition to any picture taken while standing on actively used railroad tracks that I share with Colin, this picture fails at being a picture of its (literally) nominal subject: the bridge. It occupies a modest rectangle in the center of the image. If you couldn't see the title, or knew no German, and someone asked you what you thought the subject of the image was, you'd be forgiven for saying it was the switch. Daniel Case (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bergtocht van Val Sinestra naar Ramosch 15-09-2019. (d.j.b) 05.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2021 at 16:25:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland
Info Mountain tour from Val Sinestra to Ramosch. "Larix decidua" above the mountain path.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ordinary tree with midday light. Not special enough in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. --Peulle (talk) 07:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the comment.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trinkgläser -- 2021 -- 4700.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2021 at 14:11:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 14:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 14:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but this composition doesn't work for me. It's neither two whole glasses nor one, and nothing but the edge is in focus. --Peulle (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I appreciate the abstract forms. But I don't think this is quite FP level for such a photo. I think it would be improved with a coloured background/base and/or if you used coloured lighting. It is just a bit grey. -- Colin (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not see anything for FP here. --Karelj (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful weak oppose per Colin. A bold idea, but it needs more. Daniel Case (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thank you for your reviews. --XRay 💬 12:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Outside view of Wartburg Castle (4).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2021 at 07:16:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Germany
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 07:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 07:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. I love the perspective within the composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unusual composition, but appealing for me. Cmao20 (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support good light conditions. --Ivar (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 19:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hanooz 22:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. I like how we're looking up at the entrance of the castle at an incline. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A different view of the castle, refreshing. --Aristeas (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per others --SM:!) (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support IamMM (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 12:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Επισκοπή Ηρακλείου 0271.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2021 at 09:00:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Greece
Info created & uploaded by C messier - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Before anything else, this works as a purely abstract form. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 10:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Steven Sun (talk) 06:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I see nothing wow-ish at all. Seven Pandas (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry but I agree with Seven Pandas here. It's a good photo but i'm not sure what sets it apart from any other aerial photo of a town. Cmao20 (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice urban textures Daniel Case (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Seven Pandas --StellarHalo (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per Seven Pandas --SM:!) (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao20 -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others -- Karelj (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan/Daniel — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, doesn't really stick out to me either. --El Grafo (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yellow-bellied sapsucker in CP (40484).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2021 at 17:40:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Picidae (Woodpeckers)
Info Yellow-bellied sapsuckers are one of my favorite birds, but I've never been able to get close enough or good enough conditions for a decent shot before. Recently uploaded several shots of this one; I think this is the best of the bunch (though I'd be interested to hear opinions). all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 21:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can't say if it's tilted, but it's definitely sharp -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question For some reason, the current version is showing up with the CAs on the head. No idea why. No reason to think it is tilted. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If you viewed the image before I uploaded the second version, it might still be in your cache. For Chrome it's CTRL-F5, but here's a breakdown. You can also enable "page purge" in your preferences to get a * at the top that does the same. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 10:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Definitely a successful photo. Cmao20 (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family%20:%20Picidae%20(Woodpeckers)

File:Миколаївська церква в ранковому тумані.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2021 at 19:58:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Ukraine
Info created by Vian - uploaded by Vian - nominated by Pavlo1 -- Pavlo1 (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pavlo1 (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Christof46 (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely --Wilfredor (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 09:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit noisy but such a stunning composition that it deserves FP. Cmao20 (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose More noise than we've allowed other FPs, and you can't blame it on the fog ... it's just as noticeable in clear sections. Daniel Case (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Stunning, just it would be even better with some (careful) noise reduction. --Aristeas (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support As per Aristeas --SM:!) (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but such unsharp iamage is nothing good for FP. No encyclopedic value. -- Karelj (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't add up for me compositionally, though I'm sure it was a magical experience to be there. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ceiling of interance of a room in Atabaki sahn in Fatima Masumeh Shrine, Qom,Iran.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2021 at 12:25:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Iran
Info created by Amirpashaei - uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @IamMM: Thanks Mr IamMM for your kindness and nominating one of my pictures. but I prefer to nominate my own photos. on the other side I have 2 active nomination in FP page and we can't nominate another one. Thanks again.--Amir Pashaei (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, sorry, I did not know this dear Amirpashaei. I will stop nomination right now. IamMM (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your welcome dear Mr IamMM. Thanks.--Amir Pashaei (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~I withdraw my nomination~~ IamMM (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amirpashaei, that isn't quite the case. You are only allowed to nominate 2 photos at once, but there is no rule stopping another user from nominating a third photo by you at the same time as you have two active nominations of your own! Cmao20 (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I didn't know it. no problem then. Thanks a lot.--Amir Pashaei (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We can't vote on this unless it's unwithdrawn. IamMM, do you still withdraw this? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that Amirpashaei no longer has a problem with this nomination (right?) So I will open it again for voting. IamMM (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Correct. It was just a misunderstanding. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support, although Amir Pashaei, you might consider reducing or eliminating some red chromatic aberration around some of the black tiles toward the left and right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

**@Ikan Kekek: Thanks dear Mr Kekek. that's right but after removing my pictures in WLM I haven't previous motivation.--Amir Pashaei (talk) 08:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I think the word you're looking for is "entrance". Please correct the spelling of the file after the nomination period is over. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. sure Mr Kekek.--Amir Pashaei (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirpashaei (talk • contribs) 18:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question Who withdrew this nomination and why? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Ikan Kekek: The withdrawal template was added by Amir Pashaei, but since the nominator is actually IamMM ~~I would assume that the withdrawal is void.~~ —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Percival Kestreltail, I'm afraid it isn't void. The FP rules are clear that "Nominators and authors can withdraw their nominated pictures at any time." Cmao20 (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the info,Cmao20. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Gnosis (talk) 03:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:1. কান্তনগর মন্দির.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2021 at 14:39:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Pinu Rahman - uploaded by Pinu Rahman - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 14:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 14:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support At first glance, I thought it was some electrical component! The wow of this temple is more in the details rather than the overall structure, but for me this is worth featuring mainly for its educational value. A quick search doesn't return any other aerial view of this subject on the internet. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Very nice! Do the walls of the temple really have this ‘barrel distortion’, or is this just barrel distortion by the camera lens? --Aristeas (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pretty sure that's at least mostly due to how the roof is constructed. It's curving up (and probably also a outwards bit) in the center. See how the outer roof line hits the rainwater outlets (peeking out at the corners) at an angle? If you use those outlets as a reference, lens distortion appears to be quite well-controlled for a drone camera. --El Grafo (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's physics or rather the angle of the view. :-) If you look at this building in the many photos of it in the Category:Kantanagar Temple, the walls are straight but are curved upwards quite a bit. When a shot is taken straight down from the middle, things lean outwards from the center [1]. You can see some of the inner part of the walls/railings/parapets and the central tower has straight sides. But as you go outward, the low walls surrounding each step are more and more curved upward and therefore they appear to be "bulging" outwards because of the perspective. To me, this looks like very accurate photo of this building with no barrel distortion. If it was a camera/lens distortion, the fence at the bottom of the photo would also be curved, and it's not. (You can sort of think of it as looking straight down a take-away box) --Cart (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to thank both of you very much for your explanations! One can learn so many things on the FPC page … :–) --Aristeas (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Rhododendrites. --Aristeas (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing image --Kritzolina (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite interesting. We should fix or delete the red-linked category, though, and this needs an additional category of views from above. That's all housekeeping that doesn't bear on the quality or interest of the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Rhododendrites. Daniel Case (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:210120-D-WD757-1061 (50860528518).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2021 at 13:37:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/People#Events
Info created by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Carlos M. Vazquez II - uploaded by User:Tm - nominated by User:AllegedlyHuman -- AllegedlyHuman (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- AllegedlyHuman (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Better than the other photo, but could you possibly enlarge the crops in every direction? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me,sorry --Co mmon ists 19:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support The tight crop makes the picture special.--Christof46 (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose don't like top and left crop and it'd be nice to know what branch service this woman is in; you can't tell from the blurred emblem on her cover. Seven Pandas (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The anchor on the button, and the colors generally, suggest Marines to me. Daniel Case (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm not wild about those crops either. --Peulle (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This could under different circumstances be an FP, but not with these crops. Daniel Case (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:3368 Czech Republic Air Force Mil Mi-24V Hind E ILA Berlin 2016 04.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2021 at 14:30:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air_transport#Helicopters
Info created by Julian Herzog - uploaded by Julian Herzog - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Angle of view and sectioned blades don't work for me. Also, only 3,7 Mpx from a camera that can take 24 -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but not FP quality in my pov. --Gnosis (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile Morin, very wow-y but not so high resolution and the blurry blades are more distracting than beneficial to the photo. Cmao20 (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 03:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Allium oleraceum inflorescence - Keila.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2021 at 13:57:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family_:_Amaryllidaceae
Info all by Ivar (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support IamMM (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support very pretty. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 18:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice light, great focus stacking work -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support shows the elegance and grace of these tiny flowers. --Aristeas (talk) 08:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Co mmon ists 16:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 05:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a superb photo IMO. Cmao20 (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Утки на Набережной - 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2021 at 16:36:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Russia
Info created by Alexander Novikov - uploaded by Alexander Novikov - nominated by Alexander Novikov -- Alexander Novikov (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Justly a QI, and the ducks make it more than just a picture of a bridge, but I find the composition solid without being great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support More than QI for me, the colours and light are nice, and the ducks are a nice feature :) Cmao20 (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rather interesting for a bridge image. Kruusamägi (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao; nice contrast of warm/cold colours. --Aristeas (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Crops seem quite tight but overall agree with others --SM:!) (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support -- Karelj (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. Also, because the mallards are closer/higher but on the same plane as the bridge, they look giant. Or perhaps ducks of Russia are like dinosaurs? :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20 and Scotch Mist -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A nice picture but it looks a bit strange because of the dinosaur ducks! —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bergtocht van Watles via Sesvennahütte en de Uina Slucht naar Sur En 19-09-2019. (actm.) 18.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2021 at 07:23:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Italy
Info Protected monument Alte Pforzheimer Huette (2,256 m.) Beautifully situated on the mountain road from Watles (Italy) to Sur En (Switzerland) in the alpine landscape.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful hut and composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 09:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 10:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Ikan.--Ermell (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition, but I wish it would be sharper. --XRay 💬 14:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry I am not seeing the wow here. The harsh midday sun leaves the landscape flat, not 3D, and too much of it is just rocky grass. The two tourists don't improve things. -- Colin (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A good recording, but unfortunately without the wow effect. --Fischer.H (talk) 09:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 11:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well composed but agree with others that wow is lacking. --GRDN711 (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Wow too lacking. --StellarHalo (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others -- Karelj (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has a sort of Christina's World starkness to it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sort of minimalist beauty. --Aristeas (talk) 08:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposers --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RhB Ge 4-4 Bernina Crocodile with Xrot d on Bernina pass.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2021 at 06:00:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info created & uploaded by David Gubler - nominated by Ivar (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems tilted but not. Good light, very nice combination of clouds / snow / smoke -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the "Crocodile" moves on the curve that has rail cant (height difference between the two rails), so the rail vehicle is tilted on the photo. --Ivar (talk) 08:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I mean the "overall" verticality (that is all which matters IMO) -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 12:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 05:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mosbatho (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition and very dramatic. Cmao20 (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Liridon (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles

File:Коли дім висох.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2021 at 11:35:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family_:_Emydidae_(Pond_Turtles)
Info European pond turtle in a dried estuary, near the village of Novotroitskoe, Dnipropetrovsk region, Ukraine. Created and uploaded by Рысь Роман - nominated by DimasSolo -- DimasSolo (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- DimasSolo (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support ... but please no red links as categories. --XRay 💬 14:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, not good quality for me. --A.Savin 14:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks good as a thumbnail, but nowhere near FP quality once you look at the full size.--Peulle (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose sadly per Peulle, stunning photo but quality is a bit lacking IMO. Cmao20 (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I like elements of this image but agree it is not FP per comments of others, --GRDN711 (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per others --SM:!) (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
moral support - the overall motif is really lovely, and worth being proud of. what you are seeing in the opposes above reflects just technical shortcomings (people here always view an image at full size to look for issues, for better or worse :) ). I look forward to your future uploads. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful weak oppose While I like the idea, the blur in front is a little distracting and, per others, there are technical issues. Daniel Case (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The more I look at it, the more it's yellowish. White balance is wrong in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zip line over the falls of Li Phi at sunrise in Don Khon Laos.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2021 at 04:13:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Laos
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks OK, but the light is a bit boring and the wow factor isn't quite there for me.--Peulle (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Understood. I'll try to go again under better light conditions -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 11:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:5 (معماری حرم امام رضا (ع.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2021 at 21:05:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Iran
Info created by Soroush.javadian - uploaded by Soroush.javadian - nominated by 4nn1l2 -- 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I had been told that this image was not sharp enough. However, the image got the 3rd rank in the national contest of WLM Iran 2020. Hence, I would like to see how the community at large judges this image. Thanks -- 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The composition is really good and the colours wonderful. I agree (with your linked comment) Amirpashaei has taken some excellent photos of similar architecture that are first-class. This is 36MP so not downsized like some nominations we get here. This has some great 3D feel and perspective. I also suggest File:6 (معماری حرم امام رضا (ع.jpg is a contender -- that is such an arresting view and excellent mix of architecture and people. -- Colin (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's very nice. My one problem is the man at the bottom of the second opening from the right whose smirk is so direct and intense that he almost looks photoshopped (I don't think he is, of course). Also he's melting into the railing behind him. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted Rhododendrites. There's definitely a stitching error there, running vertically and causing problems with the arch above too. Shame. Just to clarify, your comment and mine here are about the other "contender" that I mentioned, not this nomination. -- Colin (talk) 11:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cbrescia (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Iran's architectural pictures really amaze me. --Gnosis (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see I changed my mind. Well, what did Emerson say about a foolish consistency being the hobgoblin of small minds? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support The "wow" of this definitely makes up for any other shortcomings. Most eye-catching thing at FPC at the moment IMO. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient quality for me: left and lower part and right upper corner totally blurred, CA's everywhere, noise. --A.Savin 00:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very interesting, but IMO not sharp enough and CAs. Bottom left should be sharp. --XRay 💬 07:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Colin and Rhododendrites. Incredible composition even if the quality does not match. Bear in mind that this is a 36mpx image. Cmao20 (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support IamMM (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate support The CA is not as bad as some submissions here with far less DoF. And I love the color. Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 10:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ancient Mosul, a Yezidi shrine to the left and the Nouri Mosque minaret to the right.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2021 at 04:25:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1930-1940
Info created by unknown - uploaded by الدبوني - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 04:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 04:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quite interesting and would be a good VIC nominee, but I tend to think that for FP, it should be digitally restored. Is there disagreement about that? This recently came up with a historical photo of Japanese atrocities, and the feeling was that we should feature it as it, but perhaps partly because it was more famous? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great as is. -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support If there is any more space at the bottom, I would add it. --GRDN711 (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Needs a bit more love. I wasn't going to vote as it's not my kind of photo but it should be FP, I think. Cmao20 (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Finistère, France ESA21909842.jpeg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2021 at 03:01:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images
Info Finistère department, France. created by European Space Agency - uploaded by OptimusPrimeBot - nominated by StellarHalo -- StellarHalo (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am not actually sure whether or not this one has enough wow factor to be FP worthy but I would still appreciate feedbacks. -- StellarHalo (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's quite wowy to me, but what's the diagonal line on the upper left? If you zoom in, you can also see what looks like an arbitrary change of shade across the line, which just seems too straight to be natural. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Does this diagonal line you are seeing cut across Ushant? StellarHalo (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for the nomination. As you have noticed it's a satellite image taken by Sentinel-2 optical satellite. The diagonal lines are an artifact resulting from how such images are built. This image has not been taken in a single shot: satellites have a fixed swath width. For Sentinel-2 it is 290km, meaning you can't take a single picture of whole Brittany, and need to assemble multiple ones, it's called a "mosaic", or even more precisely an "orthomosaic" when the images are orthorectified. Due to the both the rotation of the Earth and orbital inclination of satellite, the satellite does not take pictures "vertically" from North to South but always in a "diagonal" direction. When these images are assembled, the geometric distortion is corrected and the colors are balanced to produce a consistent image, hiding those artefacts. Usually the lines delimiting used portions of each image are manually drawn using ground features (coasts, rivers, buildings...) so that it becomes invisible to the human eye. In this case it has not been done so precisely, that's why you can guess the "assembling lines". vip (talk) 13:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Thanks for the explanation. I think this is not an FP, though, because of the lines and the "stitching errors" in what you're identifying as plane flights. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question What are these coloured structures near the end of the diagonal line you can see in high resolution (see note)? --Llez (talk) 12:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Llez: it's a plane (since it's not at the same altitude, it probably mess up and explain why it appears 3 times in each RGB channel). There is an other one on the bottom left. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support --Llez (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support some small artefacts but nothing serious, this seems to me to clearly be a FP. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The composition appeals to me sufficiently for it to be FP. Cmao20 (talk) 11:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting --Andrei (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. Also brings back exciting memories of Finistère … --Aristeas (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:A Delta Oasis in Southeastern Kazakhstan.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2021 at 18:55:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images
Info The Ili River Delta on the southwestern part of Lake Balkhash in Kazakhstan near the end of winter. created by NASA - uploaded by StellarHalo - nominated by StellarHalo -- StellarHalo (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- StellarHalo (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Spectacular! —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support IamMM (talk) 05:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great find! --Navneetsharmaiit (talk) 07:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 09:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 14:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Liridon (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:EL foto, Eimar Kull - 88st PAJUURB.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2021 at 17:39:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Salicaceae
Info created by Eimar Kull - uploaded & nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Stamens of Salix (so basically something like that, but more to the extreme). Focus stacking of 88 images.
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cropped stamen at the edges. poor quality focus stack. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Very interesting and overall good quality but I find the crops a little bit random and we have seen sharper focus stacks here, including from you. Cmao20 (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Charles and Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:EL foto, Eimar Kull - 7stEMANE-2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2021 at 11:43:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Geometridae (Geometer Moths)
Info created by Eimar Kull - uploaded & nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 11:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 11:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really nice eye, but 7 images were not enough to get the body in focus. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles.--Ermell (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one is sharp enough to me and a really interesting shot. Cmao20 (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. I think this is a formidable achievement and enough of it is sharp and very detailed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a female Agriopis aurantiaria, and they are somewhat rarely photographed. There is a strong sexual dimorphism and females don't fly. Due to that, and their small size, and naturally the camouflage color, then finding one is somewhat rare to begin with. And to me, that mouth seems perfectly in focus. The only thing that I noticed, when once again reviewing the image, was that in the lower edge of the photo there is some fuzziness from merging the shots. Maybe that part should be cropped out? Kruusamägi (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I'm surprised that regulars Ikan Kekek Cmao20 Llez haven't noticed the obvious errors at the bottom. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! It's not that you mentioned that either. ;) Kruusamägi (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've learned to discount a degree of fuzziness that doesn't affect the subject. But would I like for the blurred part of the foreground to be cropped out? Yeah, that would definitely improve the picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've now croped the image. Kruusamägi (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 22:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SM:!) (talk) 07:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Geometridae (Geometer Moths)

File:De Strubben-Kniphorstbos (d.j.b.) 05.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2021 at 16:16:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural # The Netherlands
Info
De Strubben-Kniphorstbos archeologische reservaat Artwork created by nature. between early spring colors.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely --Co mmon ists 17:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not really seeing anything special. Twisted limbs aren't that uncommon. Harsh light. Focus is in front of the subject. -- Colin (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ To me it looks cluttered, there are better images for the front page. Btw, Rhododendrites suggested that I may participate here, I hope that's ok RolfHill (talk) 10:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not a valid vote. --Ivar (talk) 10:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Composition a bit boring, and harsh light -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Basile, nice motif but the harsh mid-day lighting isn't the best. Composition is good but not outstanding so overall this is a good QI but not FP to me. Cmao20 (talk) 09:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the comment.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mezquita de Nasirolmolk, Shiraz, Irán, 2016-09-24, DD 69-71 HDR.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2021 at 06:14:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created and uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 06:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 06:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but it should be noted that File:Mezquita de Nasirolmolk, Shiraz, Irán, 2016-09-24, DD 66-68 HDR.jpg is already an FP. Some folks may feel that's too similar a composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too tight crop and 2 similar FPs --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support better to have an arch tightly framed than cropped... - Benh (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yeah, that composition doesn't quite work for me, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 09:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination IamMM (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stone statue of the Buddha seated with moss-covered stone alms bowl in Ryōan-ji Zen Buddhist temple Ukyō-ku Kyoto Japan.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2021 at 00:09:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Statues outdoors
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A good quality photo of an easily photographed subject. But I wonder what makes this photo special. I do not see it.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Famberhorst, a good sharp photo but not a very special one --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree Famber Seven Pandas (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination-- Basile Morin (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kirov Oblast Falyonki asv2019-05 img8.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2021 at 15:26:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Industry#Russia
Info Abandoned grain elevator of a former bread factory in Falyonki, Kirov Oblast ---- all by A.Savin --A.Savin 15:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A.Savin 15:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good instance of the beauty of decay. --Aristeas (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose just a QI for me --Andrei (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice, but I wish there was no tree on the right in front of the building IamMM (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting old building - as per Aristeas --SM:!) (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting sort of cathedral.--Ermell (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you're saying that, indeed I see that there is similarity. --A.Savin 22:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing interesting for FP, just old building. -- Karelj (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Solid FP to me. It's like Aristeas says - the beauty of decay, and it's well photographed with lovely light and a good sharp image. Cmao20 (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 12:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Aristeas. Daniel Case (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Milseburg (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sheikh Lotfollah Mosque2, Isfahan, Iran.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2021 at 15:27:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Iran
Info created by Amirpashaei - uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by Amirpashaei -- Amir Pashaei (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Amir Pashaei (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amir Pashaei, you appear to have two or three other nominations on the go at the moment. Could you park this as you can only have two active nominations at any time. -- Colin (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Colin: I Withdrawed the other picture. I want to nominate pictures participated in the WLM first. because I want technical problems caused removing. --Amir Pashaei (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll Support, as this is certainly a worthy nomination, but I don't understand what you're talking about in regard to withdrawing nominations. I don't think nominations should be withdrawn without a good reason, and wanting one nomination to be voted on sooner than another doesn't sound like any kind of good reason for anything. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot dear Mr Kekek. Because I want to nominate my pictures by own and WLM pictures have priority to me now.--Amir Pashaei (talk) 06:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, it doesn't make any sense. But if you never want anyone else to nominate your photos, so they get featured slower, I guess you can micromanage that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Intresting fact, this was the Royal Mosque and the kings of Safavid dynasty were praying behind this Mihrab 5 times a day. --Gnosis (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 16:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Liridon (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Good candidate, but what causes the ringing around the lights and can it be fixed? Cmao20 (talk) 09:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks dear Mr @Cmao20: . in the left down of the picture was a huge light for lighting the inside of mosque. on the wall light was stronger and I captured with 5 exposure to recover the true light in edit process. but a little we have ringing.--Amir Pashaei (talk) 12:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Église Saint-Charles-Borromée de Québec.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2021 at 14:46:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Canada
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support New camera Wilfredor! :-). I like that the light looks so natural, not over processed, and that the high viewpoint helps keep perspective distortions to a minimum. The church is an interesting mix of new furniture and old style gilt and statues. There is a little loss of detail on the brightest parts of the central altar. I guess the sunlight coming in there is really bright. Is this an HDR or standard photo? I wouldn't want you to reduce the highlights more if that didn't recover any detail, as I like sunlight whites to be painfully white. At pixel peeping there is a bit of noise that perhaps could be avoided with a sharpen mask. You've exported this as "ProPhoto RGB" colourspace, which is too big for 8-bit JPG to handle, and might cause some viewers to see very strange colours. Could you export as sRGB please. -- Colin (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Colin, thanks for your review, and yes it's a camera from the Quebec WikiClub, they have lent it to me for a project to photograph church interiors. The quality of this camera is superior to my camera d7200 but it also generates very large files that are difficult to develop. I'm still using my d7200, because with the z7 ii I'm sometimes afraid to go out and take a photo of something meaningless because I'm supposed to shoot images that add value to Wikipedia. At the end of the project I must return it to the WikiClub. Regarding your comments I have applied a noise reduction, overexposure improvement and details of the altar, this image is an HDR of three exposures separated by two steps, I was mounted on a wooden surface and maybe there would be some vibration. --Wilfredor (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

U r a bit ruining it by using such a narrow aperture though (and no it's not needed for the DOF) - Benh (talk) 08:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Benh, thanks for your sugestion and you are very right, I waited too long for all the elements to come out in focus, however, what would be the correct aperture? (maybe f/8 in this case). I also made a panorama with a much higher resolution but my computer is not capable of unifying such large photos. Is there any technique to save this time? Should I reduce the size of these images?. Thank you very much in advance for the answers, maybe this could be discussed elsewhere --Wilfredor (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wilfredor: getting the right combo depends on the "absolute" aperture (like f/8 on FF is a f/5.6 on APS-C), resolution and distance to the subjects. Since the z7 is very high res, I'd stop down as much as possible so I'd say f/8 or f/10 (after that you loose quality, but maybe the increase of DOF for the resolution makes up for it? f/16 has probably lost u sharpness, though it's still holding up well here). Most subjects are in the distance so that makes them easier to keep in the same "DOF area". As for ur very high size pano... I'm afraid I can't help. Only large amount of memory can :) FYI Diliff used 32Gb. (maybe a kubernetes cluster of 4-5 raspberry pi 4 @8gb would make a cheap Hugin panorama computation device?? Worth exploring...) - Benh (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Some problems but ok --Co mmon ists 17:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Lovely and a solid FP to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice interior view. You needn't stop down this much, and you're slightly off center (one or two step to your left would have been perfect) - Benh (talk) 08:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 20:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing photo IMO, love the art. Cmao20 (talk) 09:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe some of the highlights on the right side of the altar could be reduced, but it's good enough for FP for me as is. Daniel Case (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SM:!) (talk) 07:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Deep Ellum sidewalk covered with snow in Dallas snow storm 2021.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2021 at 23:05:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena#Snow
Info created by Matthew_T_Rader - uploaded by Matthew_T_Rader - nominated by Matthew_T_Rader -- Matthew T Rader (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Matthew T Rader (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This light dusting of snow in Dallas might be an anomaly, but it's hardly a snow storm. --Cart (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2021 (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: Insufficient quality, far below the standards -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2021 (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:FAL-2017-Saunders Island, Falkland Islands-Magellanic penguins (Spheniscus magellanicus) 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2021 at 14:21:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Spheniscidae (Penguins)
Info created & uploaded by Godot13 - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would be nice if they were all looking the same way. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Doesn't blow me away, but nice and cute. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, penguins are too far away for me. --Ivar (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like that one penguin is looking at the camera, but there's a lot of empty space. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Percival Kestreltail. Cmao20 (talk) 11:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ivar; would work cropped tighter in on the penguins but then it would be too small for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per others --SM:!) (talk) 07:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Hausdülmen, eisbedeckter Strauch -- 2021 -- 5033-7.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2021 at 10:36:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 10:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info BTW: It's not a halo, it's ice at the branches. --XRay 💬 10:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 10:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice frost highlighted by the contrejour. But maybe tilted -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And just for your information: It's not tilted.

Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Encyclopedic uses might not be that many but I'm willing to support on the artistic merit Buidhe (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 05:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support There's a starkness I like purely on the image level. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharpening haloes!!11 oh, wait ... :P --El Grafo (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dülmen, Merfeld, Feldweg am Mühlenbach -- 2021 -- 4278-80.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2021 at 06:52:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 06:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info I'd already nominated a similar image: File:Dülmen, Merfeld, Feldweg am Mühlenbach -- 2021 -- 4347-51.jpg: It became FP recently. In my opinion, each picture should be viewed independently of other pictures. This nomination of an image isn't the first with a similar subject and I think I'll give the nomination a chance. --XRay 💬 06:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thank you, Ikan Kekek, for your proposal. --XRay 💬 06:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 06:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure thing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The pictures are of course of impressive quality but the motif is not new. That, a good image idea, is what is somewhat undervalued here at FP in my opinion. I myself often have to resist the temptation to submit 5 different views of a beetle.--Ermell (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That might be an interesting set nomination! For the record, I think this is a different enough view to be OK, but I did think of that as a possible subject for controversy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the sky! —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 10:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ermell --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, lovely view! ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 05:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SM:!) (talk) 07:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fin Garden, Kashan, Iran.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2021 at 07:28:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Iran
Info created by Amirpashaei - uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by Amirpashaei -- Amir Pashaei (talk) 07:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Amir Pashaei (talk) 07:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

unrelated discussion about WLM

*

Comment I Participated in the WLM with more than 10 pictures like this image. but I wonder why some weak pictures like this picture should selected as 4th picture and all of my pictures expect one of them should removed. The name of the photographer of 4th picture is a site and this is very easy to find for everyone. the 7th picture of Iran WLM was taken from Laft village and this village not in Iran's monuments list. .The 9th picture of Iran WLM is just a Geological phenomenon and obviously not a historical monument made by human. The 10th picture of Iran WLM is just taken from a normal wooden bridge and this bridge is not in the Iran's monuments list too. 4 picture from 10, featured wrongly. how can this possible????!!!!! Diego Delso Has been introduced as one of the judges and Simultaneous he has participated at Portugal and Germany WLM. How can this possible? This is against the law of WLM. I want to rejudging with fare and justice. These kinds of behaviors and judgments just Reduces WLM and wikipedia credit and can Discourage participant for sharing their images.--Amir Pashaei (talk) 07:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Amir, it is not against any rules or laws of WLM for someone to be a judge in one country and participate with photos in other countries. The only thing that should not be done, is to be a judge in the same country you participate in. Many the photographers here at FPC have done the same thing as Diego Delso. I was a judge for Bangladesh at the same time as I participated in Sweden. As for your other comments about the quality of the photos that win WLM in different countries, you are only saying what almost all of us at FPC have said at one time or other. In this worldwide competition, all juries are made up of non-professional volunteers, a lot of them are not photographers or people who know about copyright for images. There are mistakes and bad decisions made every year in WLM, and we try to fix some of them when they are discovered. However, this nomination page is not the right place to discuss such issues. If you want to continue this discussion, please do so on Commons talk:Featured picture candidates or Commons talk:Wiki Loves Monuments. WLM is a fun but flawed competition and the main reason for it is to get free photos of places around the world for educational sites like Wikipedia and other. That is why most of us participate in it; winning and getting prizes is not very important. --Cart (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with cart, and please stop writing this in each of your nominations -- this is definitely not the right place to discuss WLM. My purely private opinion: I for myself have -- for several good reasons -- discontinued any participation in WLx with my pictures, most likely for ever, and would friendly advice the same to you. But my motivation in the past were not the prizes. --A.Savin 11:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@W.carter: , @A.Savin: , I have not received the answer to my question yet. I asked the Iran organizer Mr Salak and he didn't know about it.I mailed to organizer too and I'm waiting for the answer. anyway I think justice and fairness is more important than the prize.I shared a lot of pictures in Wikimedia before the WLM. and that's because prize isn't important to me.--Amir Pashaei (talk) 11:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We should probably ping Poco a poco if we are going to mention him. It's worth remembering that all organizers and juries are volunteers, too, so results will vary. As an aside, it's surprisingly difficult to figure out who the overall WLM organizers are... — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you. Thanks for mention.--Amir Pashaei (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all. Please see my response to a similar complaint raised by Amirpashaei. I also want to apologize to Poco a poco in case they read this page. I find calling out their name very disturbing and I appreciate the tone of the rest of the messages on this thread to help with deescalation. We are volunteers for a free knowledge mission and the way we show up for each other and towards one another matters. Thank you! --LilyOfTheWest (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kinda minimalistic. --Gnosis (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not good composition, cutting of the ornament and so on. -- Karelj (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Karelj: Which ornament do you mean Mr Karelj?
Support Not your best (I wish there were more space at the top) but still FP because of the superb quality and nice motif. Cmao20 (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cmao20: Thanks a lot Mr Cmao20, but by adding more space at the top we have bad form of ceiling's circle. you can see distorting the circle at the top. The higher we go, we have more distorting there .--Amir Pashaei (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eagles Nests Trail 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2021 at 14:20:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural
Info "Hercules' Club" on "Eagles Nest Trail" before Pieskowa Skała Castle, Poland - created, uploaded, nominated by Scotch Mist -- SM:!) (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SM:!) (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Special image for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The combination of the rock with the castle at different sizes is very nice. --Aristeas (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. IMO white balance is a bit cool, but still, excellent. Cmao20 (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Crazy size of this rock and well done to add a person to image to compare the size. --Wilfredor (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose A little busy compositionally, and looking at full size there's some questionable processing on both the top of the rock and the bushes along the path at the bottom. Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Костел Св.Трійці. панорама.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2021 at 20:08:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Ukraine
Info Holy Trinity church in Zinkiv, Winner of Wiki Loves Monuments 2020 in Ukraine, created by Zysko serhii - uploaded by Zysko serhii - nominated by Pavlo1 -- Pavlo1 (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pavlo1 (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely landscape. The horizon may be tilted, but I don't care because I like the composition. Some kind of category of landscapes should be added to the categories on the file page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan --Wilfredor (talk) 04:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 07:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan IamMM (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 18:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Liridon (talk) 13:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pointe de Nantaux 05.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2021 at 22:45:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France#Haute-Savoie
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 07:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice, but perhaps 1/4 stop too bright. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New version uploaded, Tournasol7 (talk) 09:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 06:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 19:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Gnosis (talk) 07:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 11:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The WB looks a bit unnatural, too much on the blue and green side. --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support (IMHO Uoaei1’s hint is good – some slight adjustment of the WB could further improve the photo.) --Aristeas (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though some tweaking of the WB wouldn't hurt. Daniel Case (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 07:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/France#Haute-Savoie

File:American kestrel (44273).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2021 at 06:21:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds#Order_:_Falconiformes_(Falcons)
Info This tiny falcon was injured, rehabilited, and now an "ambassador" bird helping to educate the public. Here it sits on the handler's hand (I wonder what those talons feel like on bare skin!) all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 06:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 06:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cbrescia (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose High quality photo, but composition background distracting. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not very distracted by the blurred background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition and beautiful bird. The background makes it clear it is at an event with spectators watching, but is that really a problem? Not for me at any rate. Cmao20 (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles -- Karelj (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Order_:_Falconiformes_(Falcons)

File:Muhammadi - Picnic in the Mountains; Single Page Illustration - 1944.491 - Cleveland Museum of Art.tif, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2021 at 10:01:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/People#Groups
Info created by Muhammadi – uploaded by Madreiling – nominated by Hanooz -- Hanooz 10:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hanooz 10:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was fascinated by the painter's realistic style of detailing human behavior, animals, clouds, trees, and the geographical features of the environment. It is a pity that I have never heard anything about Muhammadi. IamMM (talk) 12:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The painting could probably use some very careful restoration, but I don't know the ins and outs of that. However, it's great art, regardless, and seems well captured to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain for now. It looks worthy, but I can't see it at full size. Support now Daniel Case (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: I added the direct link. Zoom in is also available on the museum's website. Hanooz 18:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per IamMM. Cmao20 (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/People#Groups

File:A tram approaching Dokk1, Aarhus.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2021 at 20:36:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#rail vehicles
Info created, uploaded and Nominated by Liberaler Humanist -- Liberaler Humanist (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Liberaler Humanist (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good one (though suggest to crop a little bit of the bottom) -- I know that trams are rarely considered wow here, but indeed I like this composition featuring the building too. --A.Savin 01:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)]]) 21:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically well done and convincing but the guy next to the streetcar is extremely distracting.--Ermell (talk) 08:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- New version uploaded,Person removed and crop changed, although the empty surroundings aren't representative for this central urban area. -- 04:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment The guy is barely noticeable but I don't find the composition convincing. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice composition and light but I don't find the subject that outstanding, trams are the same the world over to me :) Cmao20 (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao. --Aristeas (talk) 08:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No real complaints, but just not that interesting to me as a subject nor IMO outstanding enough as a composition to compensate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan --StellarHalo (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Taking a photo with the tram just half a meter further back would have avoided the mast shadow on the front of the vehicle, which would be a significant improvement. I like to do that kind of stuff in a high-speed series mode to be able to work around such issues. --Kabelleger (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a point. While i took an serial exposure, I have the rest that in my archive and not available promptly. -- Liberaler Humanist (talk) 12:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan -- Karelj (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Liberaler Humanist (talk) 12:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Escultura de "la Diana Cazadora".jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2021 at 07:22:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures
Info created by EneasMx - uploaded by EneasMx - nominated by ProtoplasmaKid
Support -- ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 07:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a no from me, I'm afraid. The background is a bit chaotic, making the statue stand out less. Also, chromatic aberrations need removing. --Peulle (talk) 07:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like this photo, and I want to say that even though it's not likely to become an FP and I might not vote for it, either, it's striking and I don't think it was a mistake to nominate it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Busy background, distracting splash at the bottom-left corner and harsh light -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. The background is busy but the composition is very striking. I doubt it will become FP but I honestly think it deserves to. Cmao20 (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile Daniel Case (talk) 06:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pyrite - Huanzala mine, Huallanca, Bolognesi, Ancash, Peru.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2021 at 05:59:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Rocks_and_minerals#Minerals
Info all by Ivar (talk) 05:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 05:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and well done -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 14:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Andrei (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 06:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 15:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question The large, shiny surfaces are too bright to show details. Is this a HDR shot so that this can be improved? --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uoaei1: pyrite has very tricky and reflective surface (and was once upon a time used as a mirror), but nothing is overexposed according to histogram. This is a best result I could get with different light conditions. --Ivar (talk) 12:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearly. Cmao20 (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Rocks_and_minerals#Minerals

File:Catedral da Sé, São Paulo, Brasil.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2021 at 19:57:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Brazil
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It looks like perspective issues and the windows in the background are overexposed. IMO a little bit noisy too and the sharpness should be better. --XRay 💬 06:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, there are too many quality issues like CAs, blown windows, unsharp altar, noise. Furthermore, cylindrical projektion ist not a good choice here. --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Uoae1. Diliff usually uses f/11 or f/13 with a 50mm lens e.g. File:Ely Cathedral Choir, Cambridgeshire, UK - Diliff.jpg. Do you think the focus got bumped as you panned around? I see you took this at 18mm which means fewer stitches but also potentially bigger jumps between the stitches. So if you haven't got the entrance pupil lined up with the panoramic head, you'll have bigger stitching errors. This point will also change when you shift from 18mm to 35mm, so you need to work it out for both. I suggest you try again at 35mm and f/11. I know you had tourists here so wanted a fast exposure, but waiting till they were gone would have meant you could have used a lower ISO. Diliff had two other advantages. By taking many smaller shots at 50mm, he downsized (e.g. 50%) his photos yet the result was still amazingly big, and they were all sharp at 100%. He also used HDR which much reduces noise by combining 5 images. The HDR also solves the problem with the windows. What software are you using for stitching? I think you will need PtGuiPro. You can post on my talk page if you want to discuss software more. -- Colin (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Colin, thank you very much for the technical information, I have taken note of it. I have managed to align the nodal point very well at home and I think that I could obtain very high quality images, I also solved a problem of the panoramic head by buying a special key. 5 images to make HDR sounds pretty sensible and so does the depth of field also I am waiting for an opportunity to do it, this photo was taken a long time ago in Brazil and I did not use a panoramic head or tripod because I had to do it quickly because it is a dangerous place in the city (Sao Paulo centro). BTW, this camera is an aps-c, Did diliff use 50mm in FF or in Aps-c?. Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I assumed this was your new camera. That makes f/18 even less appropriate and one cause of overall softness. I think f/8 on APS-C is similar to about f/11 on FF. Diliff used FF and prime lenses. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin (talk • contribs)

apertures equivalence are derived from the crop factor (easy to remember ;)). So f/8 in APS-C = f/12 in FF. Because of camera equivalence, Diliff and I once came to the conclusion that there is NO advantage to use FF to shot interior panorama. The setup he used on his FF gear could be replicated on APS-C. And before going big, remember your shooting time is also limited. A reason Diliff bumped ISO is that he had a life aside taking photo inside churches :-) (and that counts when a panorama requires dozens of photos, each with different exposures...) - Benh (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, I generally take between 2 to 3 hours to do a 360 panorama and 2 hours to do a normal panorama. Raising the ISO this time could be reduced considerably, I also think that an FF will generate less noise added to an HDR of 5 images that will also reduce noise (although it could also create little sharpness?). --Wilfredor (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, FF won't generate less noise if u shoot at equivalent setting (equivalent aperture, same exposure time), and yes HDR will reduce noise, without affecting sharpness if u have a sturdy tripod. -

Comment Picture of the day 2021-02-19 ! -- Llez (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added the question to the talk page of FPC because I cant underestand how the image can be in the main page if its not FP --Wilfredor (talk) 11:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thank you very much everyone for the comments especially with the technical details to improve. Unfortunately this image is not recoverable --Wilfredor (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Li Phi falls at dusk with colorful sky in Don Khon Laos.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2021 at 04:14:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Laos
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 06:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 08:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 11:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 15:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Due to the long exposure time, the photo looks unnatural to me. The bushes on the horizon (especially on the left) are also distorted as a result.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well composed --Wilfredor (talk) 03:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am not a fan of long-exposure blurry water, but this is without question a great example of the technique. Cmao20 (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SPIAGGIA A LA MAZZANTA - ROSIGNANO MARITTIMO.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2021 at 08:58:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy
Info The clear sea of "La Mazzanta" in Rosignano Marittimo, awarded by the international blue flag created by PROPOLI87 - uploaded by PROPOLI87 - nominated by [[User:{{subst:PROPOLI87}}|]] -- (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 08:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 08:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking in wow factor, and the resolution and general quality isn't what I expect from one of the finest images on Commons.--Peulle (talk) 09:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sea and rocks are nice, but I don't like the wooden posts right in my face. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the opposers above. --Cayambe (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sadly per above, I like the colours in the water though. Cmao20 (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Feels like part of a larger FP ... Daniel Case (talk) 07:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:1 lake louise pano 2019.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2021 at 17:49:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada
Info created and uploaded by Chensiyuan - nominated by Commonists -- Co mmon ists 17:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Co mmon ists 17:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful view. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Bijay chaurasia (talk) 07:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ The color of the lake doesn't look realistic and it's a shame to miss a piece of the right shore. Like this it looks kinda uncomplete. Color and exposure of the sky is also an issue. RolfHill (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sorry RolfHill, but your vote is not valid because only editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Everybody can vote for his/her own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed. --Ivar (talk) 10:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info: the turquoise colour of the water comes from rock flour carried into the lake by melt-water from the glaciers. --Ivar (talk) 10:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't aware of that, I will then wait a few days to vote and will just make comments for now. We have also glacier lakes like Oeschinen in Switzerland famous for having turquoise water (well, that one is rather famous for ice fishing) but still the color here doesn't look like I'd expect from a glacier lake. --RolfHill (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then? I'm swiss too... The turquoise colour of the water comes from rock flour carried into the lake by melt-water from the glaciers that overlook the lake. --Co mmon ists 16:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have been to this lake myself and the color is as depicted. It's hardly unique to it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The location is, I'm sure, quite stunning, and as a (US) Pacific Northwesterner I can vouch that lakes this color really do exist in our region, but the composition doesn't quite work for me. Buidhe (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support a google image search for Lake Louise returns lots of pictures with water this color. There are some things I wish were a little different here (cloud detail, foreground sharpness, etc.), but it's all about the lake, reflections, mountain, and combination of colors/textures for me here. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 20:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much parts of the clouds are overexposed. --Milseburg (talk) 12:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Per Buidhe and Milseburg. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per blown cloud highlights in distance and shadow across the lake kind of ruining the effect. Daniel Case (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good to me. Cmao20 (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too harsh light. —kallerna (talk) 13:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Saint Martin church in Apolda 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2021 at 14:45:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Germany
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pleasant scene and nice light and shadow, but I think I would like the photo better with some of the foreground cropped out. I'll suggest a crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New version uploaded, Tournasol7 (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate Support Has nice elements and is growing on me. There's a nice kind of interplay between the trees and the church. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Quality image but I don't find this view exciting enough, nor the subject very special to sort it among our finest -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful, and per Ikan. Cmao20 (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Basile. Pretty but not FP-level Daniel Case (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Not an exciting view but very pleasant atmosphere! —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. —kallerna (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sally Lightfoot Crab 2019.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2021 at 14:26:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family_:_Grapsidae_(Marsh_Crabs)
Info created and uploaded by User:Nosferattus - nominated by Commonists -- Co mmon ists 14:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Co mmon ists 14:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor lighting. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Charlesjsharp: I lifted the shadows a bit. See if that looks better to you. Admittedly the backlighting isn't ideal, but it does give it a dramatic look :) Nosferattus (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I agree, lifting the shadows will help but he ligthing isn't good. The images here Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family_:_Grapsidae_(Marsh_Crabs) are of higher quality and the environment looks more natural than here. RolfHill (talk) 14:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Here is my benchmark Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support as creator. Nosferattus (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lighting could be better, but a good sharp photo of interesting wildlife so I think it should be FP. Cmao20 (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate support I'd agree that the light could be a little brighter, and I'd also crop at the top and maybe a little at the bottom. But it still works. Daniel Case (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I took your advice and cropped it tighter. Nosferattus (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 11:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods#Family_:_Grapsidae_(Marsh_Crabs)

File:Кам'яна Могила поблизу Мелітополя смт Мирне у Запорізькій області.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2021 at 16:53:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Ukraine
Info Winner of Wiki Loves Monuments 2020 in Ukraine, created by Eldar Sarakhman - uploaded by Eldar Sarakhman - nominated by Pavlo1 -- Pavlo1 (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kamyana Mohyla (literally: "stone grave") is an archaeological site in the Molochna River valley, about a mile from the village of Terpinnya, Zaporizhzhia Oblast, Ukraine. Petroglyphs of Kamyana Mohyla are dated from Upper Paleolithic (Kukrek culture) to Medieval, with Stone Age depictions subjected to most archaeological interest. The site encompasses a group of isolated blocks of sandstone, up to twelve meters in height, scattered around an area of some 3,000 square meters. As Noghai legend has it, it resulted from a scuffle of two baghaturs who took turns throwing rocks at each other. In truth, the site had its origins in a sandbank of the Tethys Ocean. For a long time it was an island in the Molochna River, which has since been silted up and now flows a short distance to the west. It is thought to represent the only sandstone outcrop in the Azov-Kuban Depression.

Support -- Pavlo1 (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we please get an English translation of the description? Otherwise it's hard for non-Ukrainian speakers to evaluate the encyclopedic value of this image. Buidhe (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Done --Pavlo1 (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality is good for a drone photo, the light emphasizes the structures nicely, and like other aerial imagery I like it (even without considering the encyclopedic value) as a nice abstract artwork. --Aristeas (talk) 09:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. Cmao20 (talk) 09:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. Looks like the Earth has a rash there; you want to rub some lotion on it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dallas snow 2021.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2021 at 22:57:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
Info created by Matthew_T_Rader - uploaded by Matthew_T_Rader - nominated by Matthew_T_Rader -- Matthew T Rader (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Matthew T Rader (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unusual occurrence, but not an unusually great composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan, it must be blizzard but photo does not show anything special --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Special for Dallas, happens every winter here. I am in fact looking out the window at a scene like this right now.--Peulle (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We have another snowstorm today in New York, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's been snowing here in Boston as well. Very snowy week for the USA! —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose That might be a great candidate for COM:VIC! Rare scene, but not really a great picture of it. --El Grafo (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Historic event but you'd not know it from this photo. Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Geometric patterns at Robat Sharaf, Sarakhs 2015-01-28.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2021 at 15:14:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Iran
Info created by Abazar javan - uploaded by Abazar javan - nominated by 4nn1l2 -- 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A good quality photo. I can't make more of it. Sorry.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice fairly typical Islamic geometric patterns but no outstanding light, sharpness or composition to my mind. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Peulle (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sadly per others, a good sharp QI but I don't find it outstanding enough for FP especially when we have so many great photos from Iran. Cmao20 (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. I could see it working better with perspective correction and blue sky behind the arch. Daniel Case (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barenlaplaya-edited.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2021 at 19:17:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info all by me-- Ezarateesteban 19:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 19:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow and no good light conditions for an excellent photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, no wow for me either. -- MartinD (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It could be nice in different light, but I think it is very washed out right now. Cmao20 (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Matterhorn, March 2019 (01).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2021 at 18:37:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland#Valais
Info Surprisingly we don't actually seem to have many FPs of the Matterhorn - I can only see two. This is good and should IMO still be FP but it's very old and not high resolution, and this is beautiful but very different from the photo I present here. created by Liridon - uploaded by Liridon - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 05:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 07:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 16:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Fischer.H (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support IamMM (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Matt light. Not outstanding enough for this prominent motif. --Milseburg (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've been there few times. The mountain could have been photographed much more impressively. But he also continues to fascinate me.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could be crisper (IMHO f/13 was not the best choice on a APS/DX camera), but overall good. --Aristeas (talk) 08:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The Matterhorn is an impressive, distinctive enough mountain that it can withstand the soft light. However, I do find the large cloud right over it a little distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Milseburg, too much sky. —kallerna (talk) 13:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Worcester Guildhall Assembly Room.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2021 at 18:37:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors#United_Kingdom
Info I know it's not quite Diliff quality, but it's 50 megapixels and fairly sharp even at full size. I think it deserves to be FP because it's a great photo of a beautiful interior that's a bit different from the kinds of interiors we normally feature. created by Mdbeckwith - uploaded by Mdbeckwith - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question It's sharp enough, but are the colors somewhat washed out? They certainly seem so in the paintings. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek, I think it's because of light reflecting off the paintings. It's your decision whether that precludes the photo from FP, of course :) Cmao20 (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe creator has tried to match the light colors. But in the transition zone it looks artificial.--Ermell (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 13:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan and Ermell --Co mmon ists 16:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Gnosis (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 22:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite good but less than great to me per above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The colors here seem more natural in this light to me. Daniel Case (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info I am aware of the issue of colours and colour balance. The time of day (golden hour, midday and blue hour, plus grey overcast day and not) and colour balance used will always render different colours, irrespective of how it was processed. I have no problems if you do not like the colours, colour balance used or the processing used, but a change in either of them will always render a different photograph at the end. What is of contention here is if you like it. If you do you can vote for it, or if not you can vote against it. I have no problem with what decission you choose either way, just wanted to express my opinion here. One last thing, the other person used auto white balance, there is a lot of natural light AND tungsten light in the scene. By virtue of using auto white balance in their photograph it will always be cooler than mine because it has an average of white natural light + a LOT OF TUGSTEN light and it will be cooled accordingly Mdbeckwith
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Crocosmia × crocosmiiflora - Levada da Serra do Faial - Madeira 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2021 at 12:47:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family : Iridaceae
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Co mmon ists 17:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Just a QI for me. Busy background, midday light -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 06:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Basile about the background at merely full-page size on my 13-inch monitor, but at larger sizes, the background seems increasingly blurred and the beautiful flowers are ever more present. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not good background. -- Karelj (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely colourful flowers. Cmao20 (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. —kallerna (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:210201-F-LY743-9006.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2021 at 20:30:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport#Military jet aircraft
Info created by Airman First Class Zachary Rufus - uploaded & nominated by ToprakM -- --ToprakM ^✉ 20:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ToprakM ^✉ 20:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might be a good candidate for COM:VI in scope about aircraft camouflage. For FP, I see the problem that the aircraft is not lit very well lit. --El Grafo (talk) 10:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background clearly stealing plane's thunder. Daniel Case (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Honestly, I think this is dramatic enough to deserve FP, even considering the arguments above. Amazing background and amazing plane. Cmao20 (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ceiling of Borujerdi House, Kashan, Iran.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2021 at 13:56:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Iran
Info created by Amirpashaei - uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by Amirpashaei -- Amir Pashaei (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Amir Pashaei (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Again a wonderful photo! Some of the small windows are somewhat overexposed, but given the resolution these are just small spots, the overall impression is great. --Aristeas (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I once was bored of ceilings, but that one is just incredible, and perfectly taken - Benh (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This type of image makes me reflect, really well taken from a type of architecture little covered in FPC --Wilfredor (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support outstanding! --Ivar (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Liridon (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 21:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support not perfectly centered --Co mmon ists 22:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 05:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing! Buidhe (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Breathtaking view. --Gnosis (talk) 07:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Salicyna (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ahmad^talk 18:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 30 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Architectural_elements#Domes

File:Park zamkowy wPszczynie 01promykjck.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2021 at 15:39:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Poland
Info created & uploaded by Poranek - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful light, sharp photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 05:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 08:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info its almost identical to File:Park zamkowy w Pszczynie 03promykjck.jpg --165.225.207.62 11:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Definitely related and absolutely worth mentioning, but "almost identical" is pushing it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not even the same place... —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 02:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ahmad^talk 18:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Black-crowned night heron (61438).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2021 at 23:21:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes#Genus_:_Nycticorax
Info A juvenile black-crowned night heron as it straightens into an "upright" threat display after another night heron lands nearby. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 14:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. In this discussion, it has been decided to strike out all his votes. --Aristeas (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not an FP composition, nor technically good enough for me. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition, as above. -- Karelj (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can see why you wanted to take this but it's a very static image on a very busy background that just doesn't stand out from our other bird FPs. Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The fact that it's in a 'threat display' is what makes the difference for me, it's an interesting photo of animal behaviour. Quality is fine IMO. Cmao20 (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. —kallerna (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes#Genus_:_Nycticorax

Updated results:

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Aristeas (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Domaine de Maizerets, Québec, Canada.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2021 at 20:15:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Agriculture#Canada
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Right part is hanging a bit to the left --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Needs a perspective correction, but I wonder if then the top of the tree goes out of the frame even if you scale down a bit. Zooming out to a wider-angle might have been better. Does your camera have a level in the viewfinder? I see also File:Maison Maizerets 05.jpg is interesting but not sharp on the right-hand-side. Do you know why? -- Colin (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the camera has a level in the viewfinder and also my tripod has a small level, I will use it the next time. I remember that I did not use a larger open angle because there were a series of objects annoying the composition. I do not know why the other photo is not sharp on the right, this was taken with a tripod in a windless environment. I think it could be due to the lack of depth of field, yesterday I was also testing the panoramic head that you recommended and it works well although unfortunately only at the end of the lens (24mm) because it is a very large lens. Thanks for your recommendations I am going to take them into account especially the level --Wilfredor (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question Any editing happening with this photo? It's quite beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I apologize for the delay I had had to resolve personal matters --Wilfredor (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support although Colin's right about the perspective. Daniel Case (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 22:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Karol Hiller - Kompozycja heliograficzna (XXIX) - Google Art Project.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2021 at 18:53:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Printed#Other
Info created by Karol Hiller - uploaded by DcoetzeeBot - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting artwork, high quality scan Buidhe (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Buidhe. --Aristeas (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good example of Hiller's style in high quality --Kritzolina (talk) 11:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SM:!) (talk) 11:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Printed#Other

File:Museum Geyerhammer Scharnstein-2915.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2021 at 15:30:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Austria or Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Industry#Austria
Info created & uploaded by Isiwal - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting photo, unusual subject for FPC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 15:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 19:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ermell (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support There's a red spot over the door but apart from that very nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tones are completely destroyed, the whole picture is crammed into the midtones. -- KennyOMG (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding motif. Cmao20 (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Kenny. —kallerna (talk) 12:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Orgel der Schlosskirche.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2021 at 19:16:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created by Salvador Escriva - uploaded by Salvador Escriva - nominated by Salvador Escriva -- Salvador Escriva (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Salvador Escriva (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful motif but not sharp enough for QI/FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ikan Kekek, unfortunately I have this problem with the a-290, I just can't get the perfect sharpness. Maybe it's because of the edition, I don't know, I'm still new to this. It would be interesting editing it less or it doesn't make sense. Otherwise, I will have to wait until I can change photographic equipment to nominate photos. Thanks for the comment - Salvador Escriva (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I definitely understand. FPC is very demanding because we're looking for the best of the best here, so people who have great equipment definitely have a somewhat easier time producing FPs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You don't need to change equipment, just your technique. Chromatic aberration (lightroom) and noise (Topaz denoise) can be corrected. Additionally you could have used a panorama to get better quality photos. Obviously good equipment and money to travel and take photos of majestic buildings increases the chances of getting outstanding images. However, this is not a competition, but rather a family, a support group to improve each other. --Wilfredor (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wilfredor, I am aware of both the equipment limitation and my limitation as a photographer. It is one of the reasons why I dare to publish, to learn. I appreciate all criticism in advance and I hope to learn from it. This photograph is edited, so I ask now, maybe I passed the edit? And thanks for the comment - Salvador Escriva (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment oh, and thanks for the comments and for not having crushed me from the beginning, I hope I can learn it quickly and be able to collaborate with some of my photographs - Salvador Escriva (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FPC is a tough place to do that. Don't get me wrong; I don't discourage you from continuing to post your best work here, but you may get more out of posting to COM:Photography critiques, COM:Photo challenge (where relevant) and/or COM:QIC first. Photo challenge works differently from the others, though; sometimes, the highest-quality photos don't finish in the top 3 there and some striking but small and fairly low-quality work does. But it can still be fun. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, very noisy. Daniel Case (talk) 06:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 22:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tillandsia ionantha (luchtplantje). 20-12-2020. (actm.) 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2021 at 16:44:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Bromeliaceae
Info Reflected Tillandsia ionantha Air plant.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A pleasing design and colors. Daniel Case (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are duplicated outlines around the specimen at the bottom, as if its position had changed leaving a mark behind. Very visible on my screen and my smartphone. Kind of ghost, technically -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for your comment. The contours around the leaves of the bottom image are the shadows of the leaves in the mirror.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Then sorry, I find them distracting -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support on the error that Basile points out being fixed. Cmao20 (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 22:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Дивовижне каміння Південного Бугу.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2021 at 13:49:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Ukraine
Info created & uploaded by Vian - nominated by Ivar (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support might be a tad overdone, but what a composition - Benh (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per benh. looking at other pictures of this place, none of them have water nearly so blue. would prefer to see the saturation brought down, but I find it otherwise irresistible. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pavlo1 (talk) 10:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like for the sky to be unposterized. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
+1 --Co mmon ists 19:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 11:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry,per above.--Co mmon ists 10:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 15:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per benh, impressive compo. I'm not able to see posterization in the sky, maybe a very soft bandind due to processing. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support We have promoted pictures with worse banding. However, I think the picture would have worked better as either half, particularly the bottom. Daniel Case (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Amazing composition but IMHO too overprocessed. Cmao20 (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

+1 -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Steven Sun (talk) 05:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:מערת הפעמון - בית גוברין (cropped 1).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2021 at 19:24:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Israel
Info created by Tomere - uploaded by Tomere - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find this too dark for an FP, but if it's the best in scope, it could be a useful VI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish the lowest blacks were a tad bit lighter but it's still a very good cave pic imho. -- KennyOMG (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Taking a moving subject in a dark place is almost impossible. Thus, either you want this silhouette and lose the details of the cave, either you use a tripod to capture the place, but miss the walking guy. There's still a trick, though, to get both visible: assembling two frames with a tripod, one using a shallow DoF (and low ISO) focused on the person, and then another with normal DoF and long exposure to catch the cave -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose It's nice to have the walking guy there, but the photo is IMO too dark. Imagine how it'd have looked if the sun's rays were shining through the opening and falling on the man at the bottom. That would have been an FP! Cmao20 (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per CMao. Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 22:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Городище "Скелька".jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2021 at 10:04:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Ukraine
Info The Skelka site is an ancient Greek colony that was part of the Pontic Olbia and was probably one of its largest settlements. Dated to V-III centuries BC (founded) and I-III centuries AD (abandoned). The authentic name has not reached us, Skelka is the name of the tract which corresponds to the territory of ancient visitation but which appeared much later. Located on the shores of the Bug estuary. The settlement was opened in 1895.

Created by Oleg Marchuk - uploaded by Oleg Marchuk - nominated by Pavlo1 -- Pavlo1 (talk) 10:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Pavlo1 (talk) 10:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strong miscolouration.--Peulle (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I also feel like it's not sharp enough even for a drone photo for FP. Might be a useful VI, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technical issues and awkward composition. Daniel Case (talk) 06:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination--Pavlo1 (talk) 10:08, 24 February 2021 (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: Rules of the 5th day

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:Agha Bozorg Mosque, Kashan, Iran.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2021 at 08:11:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Iran
Info created by Amirpashaei - uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by Amirpashaei -- Amir Pashaei (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Amir Pashaei (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another beautiful one. Some sort of random thoughts: (1) I want to visit Kashan someday. (2) I'm shocked by the graffiti in so many places of a mosque wall - why wouldn't a Muslim be afraid to show such disrespect for a holy place? (3) There's a pigeon in the mosque! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks dear Mr @Ikan Kekek: you will welcome to Iran and Kashan. the graffiti is very complicated. because of the problems in Islamic government in Iran a lot of people especially young generation are against of Islam and this can obviously seen in some works like graffiti you mentioned.--Amir Pashaei (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see. It's a shame they'd take that out on a priceless monument. I think I'll wait for some time before I would visit Iran, but the reasons for that are off topic, so I'll just say that I love that I can at least visit vicariously through great photos by you, Poco and others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot dear Mr @Ikan Kekek: . good luck my friend.--Amir Pashaei (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ I would also like to see more support for works of Arab origin such as these. --Co mmon ists 21:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Iran is not an Arab land. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But definitely there should be support for works of Islamic origin. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 03:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, sorry. I meant Middle East.--Co mmon ists 08:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 06:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 21:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bovington modified type 59 2014.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2021 at 15:28:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Military_vehicles
Info created by Geni - uploaded by Geni - nominated by Geni -- Geni (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support My argument for tanks look better in motion-- Geni (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my opinion, FP should have a proper, insightful and substantive image description. Furthermore, it is useful to indicate the coordinates. --Mosbatho (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinates added. Not sure what you want from the caption. It says what it is and what collection its part of).Geni (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Punctuation marks, capitalization at the beginning of the sentence, information about which event the picture was taken at. --Mosbatho (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation added. It wasn't really taken an an event. The tank museum has a "pay money ride in a tank" thing that just happened to be going on while I was there.Geni (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mosbatho (talk) 08:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not feeling blown away, for some reason, but I think it's a deserving candidate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I like it, and the "motion" does make it more interesting. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral the image isn't bad at all and I'd support if it weren't for the faces. The two staff members/visitors seem to be enjoying this ride a tad too visibly. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 07:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like kids with water guns 🔫 at this Tank Museum :-) Basile Morin (talk) 10:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tourist snap. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles --Co mmon ists 17:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Charles. --Cayambe (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question It's a tourist snap. So what, if it's high quality and well composed? Canaletto and Guardi sold cityscapes of Venice to tourists. Did that make them bad art? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For sure, this is not a tourist vehicle -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it sure isn't. hahaha -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 07:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support More than a tourist snap for me because of the composition and dramatic atmosphere Cmao20 (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles. —kallerna (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So what exactly do you mean by tourist snap?Geni (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I'm sure these guys were tankful for the opportunity, but while I don't blame the photographer for trying, even the dust clouds do not make this picture less static. Daniel Case (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question What do you mean by static? The tank clearly moved, right? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Charles. -- Karelj (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you mean by tourist snap?Geni (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heliconius charithonia 2021.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2021 at 19:42:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)
Info created by Nosferattus - uploaded by Nosferattus - nominated by Nosferattus -- Nosferattus (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nosferattus (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work --Co mmon ists 08:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 14:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SM:!) (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)

File:Radkan Tower 2015-01-26.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2021 at 14:37:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Iran
Info created by Abazar javan - uploaded by Abazar javan - nominated by 4nn1l2 -- 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It seems clouds are overexposed. --Gnosis (talk) 08:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure I understand this comment, Gnosis. The lightest and darkest of the clouds are well within exposure. -- Colin (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting and unusual tower captured in good light. -- Colin (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree, but there's something that's striking me a bit funny about the conic part. Are you seeing anything other than a bit of unsharpness, such as an excess of noise reduction or oversharpening in the upper part of it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan, I can't see anything unusual there. -- Colin (talk) 10:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate your checking that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice contrast and interesting building Wilfredor (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Wouldn’t a perspective correction be appropriate? Looking at other photos I get the impression that the tower is conical in reality (i.e., the walls are slightly inclined), but on this photo the posts of the fence are inclined, too. Therefore it seems the tower is not that conical in reality, and a perspective correction would be appropriate. Or do I miss something? No offence, I just want to understand this before voting. --Aristeas (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not clear to me from an image search whether the lower part is slanted or not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question Abazar javan, 4nn1l2, Amirpashaei, Gnosis or anyone else who might be able to address this question, please comment. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the lower part is not slanted in the real. the picture has perspective error.--Amir Pashaei (talk) 07:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek, Amirpashaei, 4nn1l2, and Colin: Thank you very much for your hints! --Aristeas (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Straightforward photo, but good nonetheless. Cmao20 (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A good architectural picture most give right information to the audiences. The picture has perspective error and this problem cause to mislead viewers about the Being conical or Being cylindrical of the lower part of tower.--Amir Pashaei (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Amir, pending a perspective correction of the lower part. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aristeas, Ikan, Amir: Fence posts are not reliable judge of what is vertical, and may lean with the wind, ground subsidence, or simply lack of care when erecting or maintaining. See Category:Radkan Tower (Chenaran County) and Radkan Tower Chenaran (which has a photo gallery). I find this image particularly convincing as it does not appear to have been tilted upwards, and yet the tower sides slope. Other photos here. The artwork for this documentary shows tapering sides at the base. See also Alamy stock photos -- even ones where the camera seems to be pointing downward show tapering sides. We should not be surprised to find this building has tapering sides, for it is not designed as an office block in the 21st century. For example, classical columns have entasis - a bulge at the base. On the evidence I have seen, this tower base does taper, though we can argue about what degree. -- Colin (talk) 12:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the links. I've seen contradictory evidence in my own image search. Some photos show the columns as vertical, others as tapered, but I would defer to people who've actually seen this tower in real life. For example, it would be nice if the nominator would address this question. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have never seen this tower with my own eyes. I searched a lot on the web, but could not find the answer of your question. And I have no access to libraries either due to COVID restrictions (all libraries are closed where I live). That being said, I found this picture and what Colin said pretty convincing. I think you should not take Amirpashaei's assertions for granted, unless he provides evidence for his claim. The last point I want to mention is that this image was one of the finalists of WLM Iran 2020 (see here) and considering his reactions to the final results and other contenders, I wouldn't trust him. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was searching for an academic article which discusses the dimensions of the tower or its plan. Am I searching for the right thing? Or Maybe I should search for other images just like what Colin did. But how can one understand an image shows the reality or has perspective errors? Sorry for my novicity, as I am not a photographer. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, I'm confused. I'll just cross out my vote for now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I abstain from voting for the same reason. Indeed this is a pretty photo! But in a straight architectural shot like this one I would expect verticals to be vertical. (This is not necessary, of course, in advanced shots with special perspectives.) If we cannot resolve this question amicably, I cannot evaluate the picture. --Aristeas (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This nineteenth century photo suggests the tower was in a bad state and has been restored in modern times. Aristeas, one can only "expect verticals to be vertical" if they were in reality. See this YouTube video especially at 2 minutes in. -- Colin (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks, I'm convinced, and based on that footage, this shape looks like it's probably pretty accurate. What's more, whatever the imperfections of the photo (mainly the unsharpness and maybe something else going on in parts of the upper part of the tower), this is a really striking, almost surreal-looking image of a seemingly incongruous work of architecture in the middle of a field, with a dramatic sky behind it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you, Colin, for your hint! My phrase “I would expect verticals to be vertical” was about verticals in general, not about the walls of the tower – I already understand that they are not completely vertical, but slightly inclined; see my first comment above. What I wanted to say has been put much better by Ivar and Basile below. While the tower columns are not completely vertical in reality, they are very probably not that slanted as this photo suggests. I refer to the fact that all fence posts are leaning in, and to the detailed discussion by Basile below. --Aristeas (talk) 09:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Imo the perspective distortion is there, because the fence posts on both sides are leaning towards the tower. However, that doesn't mean that the tower columns are completely vertical. --Ivar (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree The perspective of this picture is clearly wrong because the fence is significantly falling upwards on both sides, left and right. Which means the verticals are not okay, unfortunately. Fixing them on Photoshop gives a very different aspect for this tower, and of course more vertical walls. To be honest, almost completely vertical. More clues suggesting the tower is almost straight vertical :

A model for tourists
Design drawings here or there found on Iranian architecture websites
View from above
View from a distance
"Cylinder building" as they say

Still, there might be a small angle suggested by the drawing at the left on this map (found here).

I would suggest to offer an alternative of this nomination with the fence vertical, giving a more realistic aspect to the tower -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The model and plans may not be accurate. One might make them straight for aesthetic reasons, but I don't think one would make them tapered needlessly. For example see this or p. 10 of this document.

Gonbad Qabus Tower is tapered according to Nightdevil (Iranian architect), but its plan has been drawn straight, most probably for aesthetic reasons. This example shows why we should not rely solely on plans and models created by students, businesspeople or the like. [By the way, this file is an obvious copyvio and should be deleted as soon as the discussion concludes.] File:پلان برج قابوس2.jpg shows the reality of Gonbad Qabus Tower more accurately. 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But "Gonbad Qabus Tower" is not the same tower. Currently the picture displays a tilt of about 3,2 degrees at the left and 2,4 at the right, while the reality might be half of that. About 1,5 degrees on both sides, according to the technical documents above. After correcting the inclination of the fence on Photoshop, I find an angle for the tower of just 1,4 degree at the left, and 1,1 degree at the right. That makes sense -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, they are different. I'm using an analogy. Gonbad Qabus is one tower, Radkan is another tower. This discussion is about Radkan. 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Image guidelines#Quality and featured photographic images last section, "Distortions": leaning church 1,7 degrees before correction (very similar) -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral pending resolution of the perspective issue. Daniel Case (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light. —kallerna (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

While the previous version had enough votes to be promoted (7 support votes), an alternative version is presented to address all imperfections, thanks to Basile Morin. Pinging all contributors @Gnosis, Colin, Ikan Kekek, Wilfredor, Johann Jaritz, and Aristeas: @Cmao20, Amirpashaei, Iifar, Daniel Case, and Kallerna: 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ivar (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is a reasonable adjustment. I know from creating stitched panoramas to intensely distrust fence posts and lamp posts. I'm glad this still shows the base and body to taper. I note that the view from above linked earlier in the discussion, has the opposite problem: the camera is pointing down, so that isn't any guide at all. Wrt architecture, remember that the building was nearly ruined and the base is modern. -- Colin (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the proposer 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light, and thanks, 4nn1l2, for having fixed the issue -- Basile Morin (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good now. @Basile Morin: Thank you very much for your help! @4nn1l2: Thank you very much for your perseverance and for fixing the issue! I am sorry if I have given you a headache by raising the question of perspective correction. I did not want to annoy you. I just think that if we require a perspective correction from most photographs of buildings we should discuss that problem here, too, just to be fair. All the best, --Aristeas (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support this version. --Amir Pashaei (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support this version Daniel Case (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Radkan Tower, Chenaran 2015-01-26.jpg

Image:Ferry light trail, Rostock.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2021 at 16:45:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport#Ships
Info Light trail of the Stena ferry M/S Mecklenburg-Vorpommern leaving the port of Rostock. Created and uploaded by Radomianin - nominated by Radomianin -- Radomianin (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Neutral~~ Abstain As the author, I abstain from supporting. Radomianin -- Radomianin (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In that case, I have taken the liberty of changing your vote to "abstain". —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 03:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for the correct icon. --Radomianin (talk) 07:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:San Francisco Bay ESA22014515.jpeg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2021 at 03:02:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images
Info San Francisco Bay Area. FYI, there are two faint stitching lines heading southwest in the ocean, one from Bolinas Bay and another from Half Moon Bay. created by European Space Agency - uploaded by OptimusPrimeBot - nominated by StellarHalo -- StellarHalo (talk) 03:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- StellarHalo (talk) 03:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really educational. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow --Co mmon ists 08:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ahmad^talk 18:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like it must have rained a lot the day before up the Sacramento valley ... Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Xiamen Brg 20200808.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2021 at 01:39:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by HualinXMN - uploaded by HualinXMN - nominated by HualinXMN -- Hualin~希望の星は青霄に昇る _Talk 01:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hualin~希望の星は青霄に昇る _Talk 01:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A beautiful object to photograph, but the photo is not sharp enough for me. Sorry.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's okay, I'll improve my photography technique ：）, Thanks .Hualin~希望の星は青霄に昇る _Talk 11:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad compo --Co mmon ists 08:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, IMO a good composition. It looks like taken with a smartphone. The sharpness ist low and the image is full of JPEG artifacts. --XRay 💬 08:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Economic ability can not support the purchase of photographic equipment costs so shoot with a mobile phone :( ,But thank you for pointing out the problem，Thanks .Hualin~希望の星は青霄に昇る _Talk 11:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; technical deficiencies, per others. Also the bridge is just too flat and unremarkable from this angle. Daniel Case (talk) 04:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:EL foto, Eimar Kull - 2st HÜPIK.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2021 at 19:47:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida#Family : Salticidae (Jumping Spiders)
Info created by Eimar Kull - uploaded & nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The environment is too dark for me to show the spider obvious. --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too dark. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per others --SM:!) (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I might support this if this were cropped so as to focus more on the spider. At least the leftmost quarter of the photo isn't helping the composition and as noted above, is quite dark. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I wasn't sure if the darkness would be considered as a problem or a feature. Kruusamägi (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Freedom Monument Latvia 05.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2021 at 10:23:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures
Info Three Stars held high by Liberty Statue at top of Latvian Freedom Monument - Freedom, Independence, Sovereignty!!! Created, uploaded, nominated by Scotch Mist -- SM:!) (talk) 10:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SM:!) (talk) 10:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh light -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose more or less per Basile. The shadows on her face are regrettable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --SM:!) (talk) 09:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sanok 13.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2021 at 11:47:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures
Info 'Window To The Soul' - Mary Statue at the Franciscan Church in Sanok - reated, uploaded, nominated by Scotch Mist -- SM:!) (talk) 11:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SM:!) (talk) 11:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop too tight at the right side. Composition doesn't work for me -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition and subject outstanding --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --SM:!) (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Li Phi falls and leafless tree at sunrise with blue sky in Don Khon Laos.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2021 at 01:06:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Laos
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive landscape, good light. I wonder if it would look even better if you would bring back a tiny little bit more contrast and saturation. (But this impression may depend on the screen I use, it is just an idea, no offence!) --Aristeas (talk) 10:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop immediately your offense or I'll report to COM:AN :-) It was before 7 am, so I prefer to keep the atmosphere. Thanks for your support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Beautiful light and the water flows naturally. The twig at the top right can go away for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Twig went away. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose very nice landscape and good quality image, and even a nice picture, but the light/shadow make it too unbalanced IMO. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice photo but significant area of interest (including most of stream and adjacent topography) in shade --SM:!) (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose High-quality, with beautiful details, but the composition doesn't really work for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; shadow is too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 05:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Alternatives available with different light -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 08:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Exterior view of the illuminated facade of Maison Hermès, Ginza, Tokyo, Japan.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2021 at 02:27:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Japan
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive - maybe the image could be improved even further by cropping out the bottom part with the street sign and lantern? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but cutting the bottom means losing an important section of lights, since the section above with seven rows of glass bricks is darker. I tried the panoramic format you suggest, but prefer the current appearance. Thanks! Here are the pillars inside -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose picture of the entire building would be more encyclopedically valuable. Buidhe (talk) 07:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support (IMO an encyclopedically value is not necessary. The photograph is "educational" in its broad meaning and that's the aim of Wikimedia Commons.) --XRay 💬 09:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's educational but doesn't feel like a full composition to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop appears random. Neither a compelling abstract nor a meaningful architecture shot. For example, the streetlight could be an isolated feature in a large expanse of wall. Or vertical perspective could have been left unadjusted. The white reflections on the building aren't helping. -- Colin (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Have to confess that I still find this photo very impressive. --Aristeas (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support--Famberhorst (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I understand the issues some people have with the corp, but for me the distribution of light and darkness works very well to create an interesting and impressive picture --Kritzolina (talk) 11:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive abstract Cmao20 (talk) 02:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin. —kallerna (talk) 12:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. Daniel Case (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 14:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Per Colin. --SM:!) (talk) 12:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. -- Karelj (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Painting Pennsylvania Hills.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2021 at 00:58:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images
Info Folded mountains of central Pennsylvania in the fall. You can see the town of State College in the northwest and the town of Carlisle in the southeast. created by NASA - uploaded by StellarHalo - nominated by StellarHalo -- StellarHalo (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- StellarHalo (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. Pleasant thumbnail, kind of abstraction looking like the texture of a bark of a tree. Impressive at full size -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile. --Aristeas (talk) 08:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice overall shape, pleasant colors and beautiful details. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive. --Cayambe (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow Kruusamägi (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the way Raystown Lake stands out like someone drew a squiggle with a dark marker on it. Daniel Case (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Päästetööd merel 73 (08).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2021 at 20:15:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1970-1980
Info created & uploaded by Jaan Künnap - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Image is from 1973 and made during marine salvage mission. More from the same author. Kruusamägi (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment imo very important info is missing: what happened and where (Estonia has about 3800 km of coastline), date (a month at least) and what kind of ships are on the photo? --Ivar (talk) 07:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Künnap replied, that he has participated in more than 50 similar rescue missions and that he doesn't remember which it was. He only photographed rarely and when there were time and chance. Kruusamägi (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support compelling image, encyclopedically useful, even if all details are not known. Buidhe (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would prefer a more detailed description, too, but I think for an historical image we can make an exception. --Aristeas (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A photo full of character. --Radomianin (talk) 08:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical#1970-1980

File:Thuringia Tambach-Dietharz asv2020-07 img16 Schmalwasser reservoir.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2021 at 20:42:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Thuringia
Info Partial view of the Schmalwasser Reservoir in the Thuringian Forest, at Tambach-Dietharz ---- all by A.Savin --A.Savin 20:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 20:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Seven Pandas (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose High-quality and a pretty view, but no great composition to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose midday light in the summer makes this compo uninteresting, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 07:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The light is not ideal, but still very pretty IMHO. --Aristeas (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Considering the size sharpness is outstanding. Midday-light is extremely appropriate for an representative presentation of the motif. --Milseburg (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan, not an extraordinary composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas and Milseburg, maybe not outstanding light but certainly good quality and composition. Cmao20 (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ivar. —kallerna (talk) 12:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Makes me want to be in it. Daniel Case (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arnoldstein Radendorf Wallfahrtskirche Mara Siebenbrünn 25052020 9091.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2021 at 16:49:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Austria
Info created and uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by -- Co mmon ists 16:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Co mmon ists 16:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 21:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice with the cows in focus, and clouds with texture -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile. I love the nice harmony of “Austrain Fleckvieh” with the sacred building ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 10:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 14:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Amir Pashaei (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 11:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SM:!) (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 18:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This image of the same church is already FP. Might they be considered to similar? Kruusamägi (talk) 12:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not at all similar in my opinion. This photo is taken from a different angle and the composition is unique. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 05:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was going to nominate this :) Cmao20 (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support bucolic — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 01:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lupinus polyphyllus in Canterbury Region 07.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2021 at 07:18:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Fabaceae
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 07:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 07:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect. -- -donald- (talk) 08:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty, and per w:Lupinus polyphyllus, "The flowers are produced on a tall spike, each flower 1–1.5 centimetres (0.39–0.59 in) long". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Who says it has to be a focus stack ;) --A.Savin 13:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 16:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seven Pandas (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per A.Savin. --Aristeas (talk) 10:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SM:!) (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 18:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support love the background, too --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Martin. Daniel Case (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 05:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 01:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Family_:_Fabaceae

File:Vogelmelk (Ornithogalum). d.j.b 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2021 at 16:45:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order:Asparagales
Info created and uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Commonists -- Co mmon ists 16:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Co mmon ists 16:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 14:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SM:!) (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite poetic. --Aristeas (talk) 09:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. Daniel Case (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 05:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Good but personally I find it a bit dark. Cmao20 (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 01:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Гончарська башта (1583 р.).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2021 at 06:13:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Ukraine
Info created by K Nick517 - uploaded by K Nick517 - nominated by Pavlo1 -- Pavlo1 (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pavlo1 (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't know if the noise is an intentional artistic effect or not, but the composition, though picturesque, kind of just sits there for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Like composition but am afraid too much noise --SM:!) (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 01:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bloemknoppen van Winterakonieten (Eranthis hyemalis) in smeltende sneeuw 16-02-2021. (d.j.b).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2021 at 05:48:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Ranunculaceae
Info Flower buds of Eranthis hyemalis in melting snow. Focus stack of 29 photos.}}
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 05:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really lovely. It might be worth cropping out part of the blurred flower in the foreground. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Ermell (talk) 06:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
🌻 -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 08:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 02:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull light. —kallerna (talk) 12:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Cmao20 (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just the picture I (and in fact all of us, I think, regardless of where in the world we are) need to see right about now). Daniel Case (talk) 04:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SM:!) (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Optimistic image... -- Karelj (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 05:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dülmen, Hausdülmen, Zaun einer Wiese -- 2021 -- 5073-7.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2021 at 05:51:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Agriculture#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 05:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 05:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 18:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support another good one from the XRay Ice Series. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Salicyna (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice light, but otherwise dull subject IMHO. —kallerna (talk) 12:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Symbolic, perhaps, of the moment ... a new day dawning on a world still snowed under, a world still on hold, yet with the central hope of being "post" something. Daniel Case (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful words. :-) --XRay 💬 15:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --SM:!) (talk) 12:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 05:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dülmen, Hausdülmen, Zaun einer Wiese -- 2021 -- 5100-4.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2021 at 05:49:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena#Ice
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 05:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info The ice is a rather rare event in Münsterland. At -12 degrees Celsius, relatively large ice crystals were possible. The macro shot shows a large section. --XRay 💬 06:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 05:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Special.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but more in focus would have been much better. --Ivar (talk) 06:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 08:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 12:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Normally these pictures bore me, but this one is decent.--Co mmon ists 08:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support like a goth jewelry advertisement :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Salicyna (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite dark, agree with Commonist, too dull subject. —kallerna (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ahmad^talk 18:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SM:!) (talk) 12:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 05:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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