Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/July 2015

File:Bodenseeregatta Rund um 2015.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2015 at 20:22:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info die "RUND UM 2015" Regatta im Sonnenuntergang am Bodensee c/u/n by -- Böhringer (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Has wow for sure with nice golden colors, but I really find the image quality is dissapointing when looking just a bit closer (a 4 Mpixel preview). I do not quite understand the chosen camera setting. f/13 and ISO 320 @ 200 mm for a subject so far away? At f/9 you would still have DOF from 75m to infinity and then you could have chosen a much lower ISO and thus have reduced the noise. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Slaunger, though ISO 320 shouldn't really be noisy on a D800E. I can't accept a landscape photo can be FP at 4.4MP in 2015 with no justifying explanation. Sunsets really have to be both technically and artistically exceptional to reach FP, and this one is pretty like any sunset but not particularly original and the distant hills too indistinct. -- Colin (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Pity to oppose this picture because it really has wow. -- Pofka (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Jump on the bandwagon support Noisy but great mood :) --Laitche (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC) --Laitche (talk) 11:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per other opposes. Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 10:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak support because of the colours and the mood, that's the only explanation. --Tremonist (talk) 13:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really a painting! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 19:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per other supporters --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't really understand the use of f/13 as well, but the noise level is fine for me – probably because it's mainly luminance noise. --El Grafo (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to @Böhringer: I changed to Natural phenomena because the highlight here is the sunset. Is there a problem? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no problem, thanks --Böhringer (talk) 07:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mark Rothko. พ.s. 06:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my english. For me it is not so important whether with f / 13, the picture was taken. Primary is about the effect of me. This has been confirmed to me the many assumptions in the state championship and the TRIERENBERG Super Circuit. There no one asks about the EXIF data. Nevertheless, thanks for your comments. I take the criticism of happy because I can learn. kindly --Böhringer (talk) 08:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, many viewers would be very happy with a photo like this. I only looked at the EXIF after being a little dissapointed by the image quality and modest resolution. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope neither Slaunger or I were guilty of reviewing the EXIF data rather than the photo! I don't think that is why either of us opposed. I don't think a 4MP landscape is feature-worthy in 2015, unless it was very original and amazing. -- Colin (talk) 08:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What makes an image more than 20MB in 4MB to go on pixel search? The fact is that I find my best pictures without license information on the Internet for postcard printing, publications again in print media and other websites. Whether the image is original or grandiose decide the users. Your choice I respect equally. kindly --Böhringer (talk) 11:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand your comment. Are you suggesting you limit your donations to Commons to 4MP in order to prevent people using them for postcards or websites? 4MP is plenty for a postcard or website, so don't really see why both limiting at all. Why not donate the 36MP your camera is capable of. If you want to only donate small pictures to Commons, that is your right, but I don't think they deserve FP then. -- Colin (talk) 11:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines for nominators

Resolution – Images (with the exception of animations, videos, and SVGs) of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (pixels, not bytes) are typically rejected unless there are 'strong mitigating reasons'. Note that a 1600 × 1200 image has 1.92 Mpx, just less than the 2 million level. A 1920 × 1080 image, commonly known as Full HD, has 2.07 Mpx, just more than the 2 million level. --Böhringer (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice image, but Colin is right about the resolution and your comment. You have to choose whether you want to sell you images or offer them to Commons. Personally, I am always happy and proud when my images are used elsewhere, even for commercial purposes. But I have chosen a long time ago not to sell my images. It is perfectly OK to expect a revenue for your work, but then it is incompatible with sharing them on Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't saying anything we all don't knwo. That 2MP is the absolutely lowest limit. If this was a bird in flight then 4MP might be reasonable. For a landscape, no way. This is 2015. I don't know why you've started doing this because you used to nominate larger images like everyone else. The FP guidelines say "Images should not be downsampled". That's widely ignored provided the reduced-size image is still pretty large. But 4MP from a 36MP camera? Not reasonable. -- Colin (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We all have that problem. I also find many of my pictures in the Internet without any license information and I take time to get that corrected. It usually works, but not always, and that is of course frustrating (would be great if the WMF would support us here). Still, I think that providing no content or less quality content is not the solution for the movement. If we all would do that, then soon we wouldn't have any FPs created by a Commonist. In fact, I will begin next week to upload 50 MP images to Commons, Poc o² 13:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 05:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Copulating flies.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2015 at 00:27:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Animals/Arthropods/Diptera
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Funny scene! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support LOL! --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A bit noisy, but very good and educational. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not safe for work! ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow 💚 --Laitche (talk) 08:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice action. A bit underexposed to me though. J e e 09:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support At least, we can illustrate enculer les mouches. ;oD Yann (talk) 09:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Contresens ! Ce que font ces mouches est naturel ! L'expression prend son sens si toi tu essaies ! Surtout avec des gants de boxe ! ;)--Jebulon (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 09:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Musca domestica for sure? Could anyone confirm this? D kuba (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support support for wow and timing that outweigh quality concerns here.--ArildV (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Insect pr0n! Not as great as this classic, but FP nonetheless. Come (ahem) February, let's all combine to get it to place in PoTY . Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think that there is room for improvement regarding the noise level, but hey, wow! Poc o² 18:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support High EV - · Favalli ⟡ 23:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sky team - 1st stage Tour of Slovenia 2015.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2015 at 13:35:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info Salvatore Puccio from team Sky in 1st stage (time trial) Tour of Slovenia 2015.
Info about photo: What seems easy riding was at speed around 35-40 km/h while turning. Focal plane was changing much rapidly, shot is harder to get but compo is much better from inner side. So far we have this Feautered photo of cyclist (from outside). Croped to suite cycler motion.
Support -- Mile (talk) 13:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dizzy picture! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 06:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose disturbing background -- Christian Ferrer 10:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 19:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Nice capture and nice composition but I think tis out of focus not motion blur esp. the face. --Laitche (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose background and composition doesn't convince me. Kruusamägi (talk) 08:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good shot. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others, furthermore IMHO this kind of shot should be executed using panning Poc o² 19:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sporti (talk) 07:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 05:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:2014 Rochas da praia das Furnas Porto do Son. Galiza-F3.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2015 at 12:51:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Lmbuga - uploaded by Lmbuga - nominated by Mirrys -- Mirrys (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mirrys (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. --Laitche (talk) 13:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info I would like to support this photo, so I will nominate it again. bakuresearch (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Macaca fascicularis in Tarutao National Marine Park.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2015 at 11:54:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by Rushen - uploaded and nominated by -- The Photographer (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful,good and funny --LivioAndronico talk 13:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cute. --Pugilist (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp imo (or maybe NR has gone much too far) --Kadellar (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not perfectly sharp, that's true. However, this is not a photograph of a building. :) --The Photographer (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't QI here....We must adapt the evaluation to the type of subject--LivioAndronico talk 16:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Photographer, I usually nominate pictures of animals and sports. I expect the rest of candidates to be sharp, as I try to do with mine. --Kadellar (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO this picture could be different under certain conditions there is always an exception to the rule, however, I respect your appreciation --The Photographer (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

like this [1] Kadellar? but please....--LivioAndronico talk 17:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here you just have shown your knowledge of photography, comparing a portrait with a macro shot (sharp, btw). WELL DONE!! --Kadellar (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not care anything about the type of picture Kadellar, I wanted to see your mistakes and your ways of doing ridiculous, could also be a motorcycle. Do not make so much accurate, because just you're not!--LivioAndronico talk 15:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Livio is right but in this case I assume it's downscaled 36.2Mpx → 4.7Mpx (2653 / 7360 x 4912 = 1771) still not enough sharp. That's totally different from that one. --Laitche (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this had been taken with a Nikon D200, you'd have evaluated differently ?, you are evaluating the camera or photography itself?. --The Photographer (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is just an analysis, not a vote :) --Laitche (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The world is beautiful because it is varied :) --LivioAndronico talk 17:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice expression. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support per Kadellar. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support what a facial expression! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 10:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This monkey is saying "You should support!". --Laitche (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Laitche. :-) --Tremonist (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support So some of his fur is unsharp ... big deal with an expression like that. I think, based on how the public votes in PoTY, we have just seen one of the finalists at least. Daniel Case (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel. And say no to captivity. J e e 03:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 06:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support jep, per Daniel. --El Grafo (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC) Double votes. --Laitche (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lighting is not the best but nice capture anyhow, FP to me Poc o² 12:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 11:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Staphylaea staphylaea staphylaea 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2015 at 11:46:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 11:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 11:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good for an encyclopedia. :) --Tremonist (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --· Favalli ⟡ 23:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 07:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 11:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 20:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2015.05.24.-15-Buchklingen--Pyramideneule-Raupe.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2015 at 16:53:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info All by me. Hockei -- Hockei (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support :P 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support because of the disturbing object on the right. Maybe you can clone that out Poc o² 18:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer more lead room so it can crawl freely. No problem with that spidy on right. J e e 03:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support So green ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 14:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Beyonce Knowles with necklaces.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2015 at 18:43:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Tony Duran - uploaded by Gsshatan~commonswiki - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer 18:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 18:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry Christian but from a studio work I ask more,the hand and part of hair are out of focus....sorry --LivioAndronico talk 19:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a motion blur... --Laitche (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice portrait. Yann (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I could live with some of the hair being unsharp because of motion blur – probably intended and makes it more dynamic. But it comes at a price: Her fingers look unsharp as well, even at the default preview size of the file description page. All in all, it just doesn't work for me. --El Grafo (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a pity, but the unsharp hairs are disturbing for me. May be that it is a matter of taste. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very nice, but simply unsharp at all. It's a pity. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 04:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. -- Pofka (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral at most, sorry. --Tremonist (talk) 13:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Great pose but too many flaws. Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Camden Town Streetcorner -- 2015 -- London, UK.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2015 at 16:28:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created, uploaded & nominated by Alurín -- Alurín (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alurín (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversaturated Daniel Case (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel Case -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. -- Pofka (talk) 09:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, sorry. --Tremonist (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Punaselg-raisamardikad.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2015 at 14:31:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info created & uploaded by Ireena - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SupportNot very high wow but EV (assuming that it is a typical behavior of the species) and good quality.--ArildV (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose A bit cluttered IMHO, EV is high but the composition isn't appealing. Furthermore the area on the left is out of focus, sorry Poc o² 18:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting, but not visually compelling in my opinion (per Poco²). — Julian H.^✈ 11:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think a tighter crop would have resulted in a better photo.--Fotoriety (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this kind of photos are Wikipedia FP but not Commons FP, imho. --Laitche (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per others. --Tremonist (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Poco. Kruusamägi (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2010 Winter Olympics Bode Miller in downhill.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2015 at 14:13:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created by Kevin Pedraja, Flickr - uploaded by Miaow Miaow - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral small size (and main object a small part of the images), not enough wow to compensate for it imo.--ArildV (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice motion shot but per ArildV. --Laitche (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Arild V. — Julian H.^✈ 11:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, per Arild. Daniel Case (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per others. --Tremonist (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thames Estuary and Wind Farms from Space NASA.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2015 at 21:46:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by NASA Landsat 8 + Operational Land Imager - uploaded by Delusion23 - nominated by Delusion23 -- Del_♉sion23 (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Del_♉sion23 (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 07:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Magnolia liliiflora 2015 G1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2015 at 12:39:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful colours. --Tremonist (talk) 12:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The grey background with this beautiful pink say WoW--LivioAndronico talk 13:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Absobloominlutely support Very good way of using flash light, Nice colours and good composition. --Laitche (talk) 13:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per LivioAndronico and Laitche. --Code (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Nice and attractive colors! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gloomy clouds works perfectly with these flowers. -- Pofka (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 18:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 03:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 06:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice interplay of subtle, splashy, and neutral tones. Daniel Case (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ พ.s. 06:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At least 50 edits for vote พ.s. and more try to motive your vote! Thanks --LivioAndronico talk 08:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abusing multiple accounts: Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Biopics --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Unnatural flash light. Moros y Cristianos 18:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Abusing multiple accounts: Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Biopics. Voting by socks is unacceptable. Yann (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think flash light is always unnatural... --Laitche (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And what is the natural light of flash Moros y Cristianos? --LivioAndronico talk 19:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--ArildV (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've to agree that the flash is an issue. To me it just doesn't look right. A grey sky with poor and flat lighting and bright flowers in the foreground with strong shadows. I also miss some wow here, to be honest. Poc o² 19:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Сказка,Мечта,Красавица.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2015 at 10:31:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Chuya Alps, Altai Mountains. The Tyva Republic. Russian Federation. A view from Lake Shavlo on tops of North Chuya Range

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Александр Лещёнок - uploaded by Александр Лещёнок - nominated by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMHO a very nice landscape at very good light and a beautiful composition. -- Tuxyso (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice light. — Julian H.^✈ 11:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support a very nice landscape at very good light and a beautiful composition and a little bit overprocessed, esp. oversharpened the rocks on the left bottom :) --Laitche (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Сказка именно. Perfect. --Mile (talk) 06:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good, but looks like denoising was applied too aggressively. Deserves support anyways. --Code (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--KSK (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Singapore Flyer 2014 Singapore GP.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2015 at 15:39:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created by Morio - uploaded by Morio - nominated by Σπάρτακος -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fence covers way too much. Plus you nominated it as sports, but the only thing I see there related to sports is the almost completely blurred car and huge TV showing some random frame. I do like the shot as it looks quite mysterious with that wheel and storm-like clouds, though I don't see it among other FP pictures. Pity. -- Pofka (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The main subject (it is nominating as sports so I think main subject is a car) is too small... --Laitche (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Can't really tell what the subject is supposed to be here. Daniel Case (talk) 06:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark overall. --Tremonist (talk) 13:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tarvasjõgi nov. 2013.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2015 at 19:31:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Ireen Trummer - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 19:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 19:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice mood :) --Laitche (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support White sky but it's winter. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support although highlights are problematic --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice mood. --ArildV (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice landscape and mood but wow level is not high to me Poc o² 18:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 10:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support excess of desaturation maybe, but really good !--Jebulon (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Doorgang in muur. Locatie, Chinese tuin Het Verborgen Rijk van Ming. Locatie. Hortus Haren 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2015 at 04:47:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Passage in wall. Location, Chinese garden, the Hidden Realm of Ming. Location. Hortus Haren. created by Famberhorst] - uploaded by Famberhorst] - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality and composition....and WoW --LivioAndronico talk 07:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 08:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak oppose~~ Neutral The shadows on the wall are distracting, it's not artistic for me... and too noisy in the shadowed areas especially red flowers. --Laitche (talk) 09:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Alternatively, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Doorgang_in_muur._Locatie,_Chinese_tuin_Het_Verborgen_Rijk_van_Ming._Locatie._Hortus_Haren_02.jpg. --Famberhorst (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the other version is better but probably I'm neutral. --Laitche (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment slightly tilted clockwise, D kuba (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Tilt correction.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Xicotencatl (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 04:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 08:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent composition -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Am I an only opponent!? I think it's probable because of I am Japanese, the wall (gate) is rarity but other elements are pretty ordinary to me, but China and Japan must need cooperation therefore I change my vote to neutral :) --Laitche (talk) 09:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lilitik22 (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 06:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2010 Malaysian GP opening lap.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2015 at 10:36:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created and uploaded by Morio - nominated by -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 10:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 10:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This slight tilt might be ok for a QI, I think it's not good for a FP like this. --Kadellar (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great racing scene! A little motion blurr is due to action and thus acceptable here. Very vivid. --Tremonist (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tilt can be corrected. --Tremonist (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is a panoramic curve, I like in this way.... --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wow --LivioAndronico talk 14:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good! -- No EXIF Data :-( --XRay ^talk 19:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No sense of movement... This is one of those things, race cars are supposed to be fast, racing photography is kind of expected to convey presicely that... #REDIRECT[[2]] --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nothing wrong with taking this. But ... we have varying degrees of sharpness that can't be explained by the fact that the cars are moving since not only does it not apply equally to all of them, it affects some of the track as well, and there's that crop. I think this picture tried to do too much. QI for sure but no star. Daniel Case (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice colors and angle but I think the opening lap is not good timing for this composition since tis very crowded with cars. --Laitche (talk) 10:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misunderstand it's not a revenge vote... --Laitche (talk) 12:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral its a bit crowded, perharps a images taken a few second earlier would have been better.--ArildV (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Quality is not bad, but it is too crowded and somehow static Poc o² 18:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lyriothemis acigastra male at Kadavoor.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2015 at 06:48:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
Info Lyriothemis acigastra, Little Bloodtail, male. Created by Jee - edited by Christian Ferrer - nominated by Jee -- J e e 06:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- An extremely rare dragonfly. Fraser mentioned only three observations of them; from Darjeeling, Assam and Burma. Recently Zoological Survey of India collected specimens from Kannur and declared that they are matching with Fraser's. I'm happy to photograph the male, female and mating pair on their first visit to Kadavoor. :) J e e 06:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 07:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 08:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 09:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support If it is actually rare, FP for sure!:) D kuba (talk) 11:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per D kuba and the quality is not bad, many reverts... --Laitche (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; it is pre-reviewed. :) J e e 13:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Our Lady of Mount Carmel and St Pauls Pro-Cathedral.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2015 at 10:16:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created by Nino Verde - uploaded by Nino Verde - nominated by Nino Verde -- Nino Verde (talk) 10:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The horizon is tilted ccw... --Laitche (talk) 11:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If i turn image, verticals will be wrong. Currently verticals are nice. --Nino Verde (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this photo is a bit distorted, see this and this, Regards. --Laitche (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mean you can correct the horizon without rotation and loss resolution :) --Laitche (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Xicotencatl (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support No problem with the horizon. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Laitche, it's tilted. Otherwise I would support. --Code (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Already admired on QI, very good. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very detailed (though not only the horizon but also the dome is tilted). --Laitche (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--LivioAndronico talk 08:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent detail. Daniel Case (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:GP Camión de España 2013 - 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2015 at 16:18:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info Spain Truck GP 2013, Jarama Circuit. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Kadellar (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kadellar (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good, but IMO a part of the top and bottom (line on the street in the bottom right corner) should cropped out. - -XRay ^talk 19:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me --Σπάρτακος (talk) 22:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Action shots depend on the representation of movement. Movement on a a still image can be represented in two ways, the first is motion blurr in relation of two objects or the freezing of unnatural poses. For example, motion blurr in this case is non existent, we could be looking into parked trucks on a race track. The wheels are frozen and there is no sensation of movement. This type of shot is best achieved by panning the subect and to let the background become blurred, thus giving the impression of movement. The other type of frozen action is to capture via high shutter speeds the climax of a scene, like a basketball player in a high jump, a bullet frozen by flash, a dive of a a football player where we can se defining moments that cannot be seen with the naked eye. Please see #Motion Blur images. [[3]] --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Technically ok and speedy action visible. :) --Tremonist (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support I think the dust tell us the trucks is moving. The picture works better if I watch it in larger size.--ArildV (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Dynamic image but this shot is not enough depicting the motion. --Laitche (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing of special --LivioAndronico talk 08:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Osmussaar. Lighthouse..jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2015 at 17:17:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created and uploaded by Aleksandr Abrosimov - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 19:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 19:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice --Σπάρτακος (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 05:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support what colors! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice mood and colors. --Laitche (talk) 08:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 11:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Sorry to be the one to (so far) break up the rally, but while this one, as noted, does so much right it still looks a little oversharpened on the lighthouse and land in the background (see especially the trees). Daniel Case (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Sorry but I am not convinced by the quality or composition.--ArildV (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The horizon is tilted ccw 0.15° and color space is uncalibrated and color profile is Adobe RGB, if you can fix it, I think that would be better. --Laitche (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lilitik22 (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Due to the long exposure. Never seen the sea like that... I like the rocks.--Jebulon (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:San Cesareo de Appia (Rome) ,interior.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2015 at 15:42:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info San Cesareo in Palatio or San Caesareo de Appia is a titular church in Rome, near the beginning of the Appian Way. It is dedicated to Saint Caesarius of Africa, a 2nd-century deacon and martyr.In the 4th century, Emperor Valentinian was cured at the shrine of Caesarius at Terracina, the site of his martyrdom. The emperor then decided to move his relics to Rome. They were taken to a church on the Palatine Hill, and when they were later moved to a new church, that church got the name "in Palatio", "at the Palace". It is also known as San Cesareo de Appia.Excavations have revealed a Roman bath on the site from the 2nd or 3rd century, with a huge black and white mosaic depicting Neptune and marine creatures, along with foundations of what is thought to be the first church here, built in the 8th century.All by -- LivioAndronico talk 15:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico talk 15:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ OK, but I miss the chair legs. -- ^talk 19:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The legs are there XRay...not all. I have a 18 mm and I can't take the roof and all the chair legs. Also because the church is short and after me there was the door. Anyway thanks for your time.--LivioAndronico talk 19:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support I don't know why the EXIF shows 24 mm. You're right, this kind of picture is not easy to take. And most of the image is very well done. So a "pro" is good. --XRay ^talk 04:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Pofka (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do not have the passion of XRay for chairs but for me it is very good --Σπάρτακος (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support What's all that stuff on the floor near the altar? Was this just after a wedding or something? Daniel Case (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Daniel,this church is famous in Rome for the weddings,thanx.--LivioAndronico talk 08:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done Diliff --The Photographer (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks The Photographer for support but don't think that David should be happy of the paragone --LivioAndronico talk 16:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought you were Diliff, I did not open the image, even to review it. Maybe I need change my vote --wait-- No, your image is ok, its not Diliff level, however, its good --The Photographer (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Code (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 04:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 09:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose sorry but not one of our best church interior images imo. Lower right part are not very sharp, the overexposed white chair seats are disturbing. Not a bad photo, but not one of our best imo.--ArildV (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"not one of our best" in comparison with what? --The Photographer (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the first sentence.--ArildV (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support mainly due to the lack of sharpness on the right as ArildV mentioned Poc o² 18:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Info Demoted/Delisted to not featured per this consensus. --Cart (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Veiled in Red.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2015 at 14:27:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Charlie Marshall - uploaded and nominated by -- The Photographer (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice red! --Laitche (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 14:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support :-) IMO you should add the personality template. --XRay ^talk 19:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Do I vote for the picture or for the lady? --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unsharp at the edges of her chin, but in this case that works in the image's favor since she's partially veiled. In any event her eyes are in focus, as we all know they should be. Daniel Case (talk) 04:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support amazing --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! Yann (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Gorgeous — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture! --Halavar (talk) 09:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 09:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry but no wow for me.--ArildV (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The scarf was painted by the blood of slaves, now it has wow for you? :) --The Photographer (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand that you are trying to say.--ArildV (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Catching eyes and nice expression for me. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Imo the idea is good but I am not impressed by the execution. The composition is a little stiff, not really dynamic. Personally I dont like the reflection in the eyes.--ArildV (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Pugilist (talk) 13:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Shahdag National Park (Qusar, Azerbaijan).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2015 at 10:45:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Khagani Hasanov1988 - uploaded by Khagani Hasanov1988 - nominated by Interfase -- Interfase (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Interfase (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. --Laitche (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Qusar, Azerbaijan (2).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2015 at 10:26:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Vussale - uploaded by Vussale - nominated by Interfase -- Interfase (talk) 10:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Interfase (talk) 10:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. --Laitche (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hinal dağ. 8.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2015 at 10:29:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Kozis.zober - uploaded by Kozis.zober - nominated by Interfase -- Interfase (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Interfase (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. --Laitche (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caucasus Viper.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2015 at 10:31:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Hazo hazo - uploaded by Hazo hazo - nominated by Interfase -- Interfase (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Interfase (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. --Laitche (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:"Ağ qaya" şəlaləsi.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2015 at 10:33:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Orkhan567 - uploaded by Orkhan567 - nominated by Interfase -- Interfase (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Interfase (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. --Laitche (talk) 10:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tuapsinsky District Mount Indyuk 20101001.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2015 at 17:17:07
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mount Indyuk in Tuapsinsky District, Russia / Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created by Roman.m63 - uploaded by Roman.m63 - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A nice scene, but it suffers from severe posterisation and I get the impression that it's been dodged and burned a bit. There's a glow around the foreground rocks and tree. Diliff (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Diliff --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Diliff --Laitche (talk) 06:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Diliff --Tremonist (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overprocessed. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment above {{FPD}} was tagged at 13:37, 3 July 2015‎ by Kadellar. --Laitche (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Двухэтажка.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2015 at 18:56:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Canyon of the Tsitse river in Caucasian Biosphere Reserve, Russia / Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created by Synaps-s - uploaded by Synaps-s - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice composition but is this a mosaic? --Laitche (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, too noisy, oversharpened/jpg-artefacts everywhere, with the exception of the eagle! Assembled image, landscape + eagle. --Llez (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Griffon vulture, please :P --Kadellar (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others. --Tremonist (talk) 12:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fake. Yann (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overprocessed! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could fix the problem, I shook my pc... （＾＾） --Laitche (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. Kadellar, 13:37, 3 July 2015

File:Eastern great egret, Keitakuen, Osaka.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2015 at 14:29:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info C・U・N by Laitche -- Laitche (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitche (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful colours and reflections. --Tremonist (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice bird, reflections, place. Nice all... 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would crop out abbout half of the space on the right. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomascastelazo: Thanks for the suggestion, you mean this crop? If so I prefer no crop version :) --Laitche (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Laitche: A little more... Put the bird in line with the imaginary line of the right of rule of thirds. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomascastelazo: this one? --Laitche (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Laitche: Much better... the eye move across nicely from left to right and stops at the bird, after that it does not have much space to move on. The rule of thirds works pretty well most of the time. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomascastelazo: I know what you mean but I want three elements horizontally, lotuses and darker stone and brighter stone so I prefer the original :) --Laitche (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC) PS. lotuses are closer and low, darker stone is middle, brighter stone is farther and high :) --Laitche (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Laitche: It´s your picture and my suggestion.... you decide ;) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomascastelazo: Thanks a lot :) --Laitche (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support OK (and I like the suggested crop of Tomascastelazo)--XRay ^talk 17:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bojars (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid I really don't like the distracting light coloured rock on the right. It takes the eye away from the subject. I'd go a tiny bit further left than your second crop above at chop at 3611px width from the left. To me, that's all nice dark water + reflection and the bird in contrast. You still have three elements, if you include the bird! -- Colin (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: I guess you mean this crop, yes I know that crop is good balanced but I prefer the original, it's maybe Japanese-ish sense so I don't mind at all if you nominate any crop as alternative :) --Laitche (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC) p.s. Thanks Colin, your vote is oppose but I think your comment is a compliment :) --Laitche (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: I uploaded the pre cropped version, I think they can create the other crop versions more easily :) --Laitche (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't think the wide composition, with the bird dead center, works here. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support While a cropped image wouldn't be bad either, I like the way this places the bird in some natural context. Daniel Case (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this image is good, not a FP, I would go further and crop as a suggest on the note (and a sample here), because all this empty space do not add to the photo, the reflection is not good, and the most important subject now fills the frame. I also suggest, as in the sample, raise up the shadows, it gives a better result. -- RTA 05:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RTA：I can't see the sample (error 404), please check the URL... --Laitche (talk) 05:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, Laitche try this one. -- RTA 05:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RTA：OK, I can see that thanks. --Laitche (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RTA：Your sample gives me a hint so I nominated alternative 2, Thanks :) --Laitche (talk) 08:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC) p.s. If the bird is larger then I think your sample is better but it's too small for this bird, that would be 3MP... --Laitche (talk) 08:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment --@King of Hearts：, @RTA： I don't think the bird is only main subject in this photo, I am seeing ten elements here then the bird is the one of ten for me :) --Laitche (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A lot of space all around that doesn't support the main subject, in my opinion. — Julian H.^✈ 06:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Julian：Thanks for the review, the bird is the one of elements here for me like this one :) --Laitche (talk) 06:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There, the arrangement of everything makes sense to me. Here, The arrangement feels random. I'm not saying it's not possible that this much space around the subject can work. But the reflection of the fence (which gives the image an impression of human interference) isn't helpful and the flowers don't have a real positive impact. In my opinion. — Julian H.^✈ 06:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Julian：OK, I see what you want to say :) --Laitche (talk) 08:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC) p.s. That isn't a fence, it's a ~~sudare~~ bridge :) --Laitche (talk) 10:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support my favorite -- Christian Ferrer 17:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strange composition. -- Pofka (talk) 10:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. Maybe a portrait sould have been a better choice for such a "vertical" bird, even in this environment.--Jebulon (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 1[edit]

Info @Tomas：, @Colin：, @King： I nominated the alternative following the suggestion (I hope...), but I still prefer the original... --Laitche (talk) 06:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 06:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better, though there could still be more space at the bottom of the reflection. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes (though I'd have cropped a bit more off the RHS as I indicated above). -- Colin (talk) 07:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This version is really better. Yann (talk) 09:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are so many crop options possible from the original. I added my suggestion too. :) J e e 09:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good too. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the sharpness, colors and reflexion. Poc o² 18:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 10:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 11:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Down with the so-called "alternatives" ! How many until we will have the good one ? Here is FPC, the nominator have to chose carefully a good version before nominating, and wait after the end of the voting period before renominate a cropped (or whatever other else) version. --Jebulon (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 2[edit]

Info More focus on the bird and rule of thirds. --Laitche (talk) 07:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 07:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--LivioAndronico talk 08:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The bird's full reflection is much nicer. --Tremonist (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Christian Ferrer 17:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Down with the so-called "alternatives" ! How many until we will have the good one ? Here is FPC, the nominator have to chose carefully a good version before nominating, and wait after the end of the voting period before renominate a cropped (or whatever other else) version. --Jebulon (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Egretta garzetta, Keitakuen, Osaka II.jpg

File:Museum of Anthropology UBC 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2015 at 16:08:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Xicotencatl - uploaded by Xicotencatl - nominated by Xicotencatl -- Xicotencatl (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Xicotencatl (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it's very good subject for photograph but this light and the angle are not optimal, imho. --Laitche (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Laitche: Thanks for the review. I know the Sun is shinning on the building, but is evening Sun, and I personally like how it looks. About the angle, I like it more than a full front angle like this one:

--Xicotencatl (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the other angle is ordinary but I cannot support this nomination, I believe you can find most more good light and the angle, Regards. --Laitche (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Laitche. Interesting angle would work in different light. Daniel Case (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I actually like the light. The low angle helps to show the inside in my opinion, and the warmth is always nice. — Julian H.^✈ 06:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Laitche. --Tremonist (talk) 13:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry I understand the composition but I think the three and information board is just to disturbing. --ArildV (talk) 15:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Support per Julian (could the author please add the location)--CHK46 (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added the location. --Xicotencatl (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pieter Bruegel the Elder - The Tower of Babel (Vienna) - Google Art Project - edited.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2015 at 19:13:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Pieter Bruegel the Elder / Google Art Project, uploaded by Dcoetzee, nominated by -- Yann (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very high resolution reproduction of a famous painting: The Tower of Babel, 30,000 × 21,952 pixels, file size: 202.82 MB. -- Yann (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive version. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support (!) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 06:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 08:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Important painting captured in high quality. --Pugilist (talk) 11:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pink roses, Nakanoshima Park, Osaka.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2015 at 15:57:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created, uploaded and - nominated by Laitche -- Laitche (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitche (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info I was setting the camera 3MP by mistake! --Laitche (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks :) --Laitche (talk) 11:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:James Webb Telescope Model at South by Southwest.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2015 at 10:50:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Space exploration
Info created by NASA/Chris Gunn, - uploaded by Stas1995, nominated by -- Yann (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support High educational value, nice composition, and beautiful colors hopefully compensate for the quality. -- Yann (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support /St1995 12:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks great. --Tremonist (talk) 12:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy (the sky), overprocessed (see the halo besides the building), chromatic aberration everywhere, not sharp enough. Far from the technical standards of FP, in my opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC) I forgot: lens flare, ghosts, and perspective distorsion.--Jebulon (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is this allowed on Commons? There's no FoP for public artworks in the US and I'm pretty sure this doesn't count as a building. Regardless of whether the photo is a product of a US government agency/employee, it's not clear that a non-governmental agency wasn't involved in the building of the model (although I'm happy to be corrected on that). What I did find was this: The actual telescope is a collaborative project amongst 1000 people in 17 countries, including seven non-governmental organisations. I'm reminded of Cloud Gate in Chicago, which is something that we're not allowed to host on Commons. I know because I inadvertently uploaded a photo of it and had it deleted by an admin. Somehow some images of it remain on Commons, but the vast majority have been deleted. I don't know under what rationale they were kept or not, but I assume they have to be sufficiently abstract that they can't be considered photos of the artwork itself. That seems to be the case for all the images except this one and this one. Diliff (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I see why some of them remain. They've been uploaded only very recently, and I'm guessing an admin hasn't gotten around to deleting them yet. Diliff (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon. I don't see this as an artwork, Diliff, although it's a beautiful telescope. Couldn't you take pictures of a microscope lying on a street of the US? I don't think a model of the telescope is different enough from the telescope itself. --Kadellar (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I don't think it has to be 'art' by our normal definition of the word, it just has to be a structure with a copyrightable design that isn't a building (Here, it says that it is only considered a building if it can 'house people')... A telescope isn't a building either, whether it's a model of a telescope or an actual working telescope. This lack of FoP is ridiculous sometimes, it's so hard to know for sure what is okay and not okay. Diliff (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed. Way too unrealistic at parts (especially sky). -- Pofka (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Yann (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:UBC Theology Building.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2015 at 01:32:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Xicotencatl - uploaded by Xicotencatl - nominated by Xicotencatl -- Xicotencatl (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Xicotencatl (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Touzrimounir (talk) 10:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry good quality but the composition is a bit cluttered, probably difficult to avoid (but I miss the wow here).--ArildV (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is not convincing. --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposes. --Laitche (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per ArildV, there is not much to see of the building and the result with the surroundings is not resulting in a striking composition Poc o² 18:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. -- Pofka (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 09:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zicht vanuit de uitkijktoren over zomerpolders, drinkdobben en kwelders. Locatie, Noarderleech 04.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2015 at 06:02:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info High skies above the emptiness of the wad. Location, Noarderleech. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice composition, looks like painting. Slightly tilted cw (needs rotation ccw 0.15°). --Laitche (talk) 09:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Tilt correction. Thank you.--Famberhorst (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think just a little bit too much rotated but ok. --Laitche (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice landscape, good composition I like this clouds and the sky. --Laitche (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: these clouds are typical for the Dutch coastal areas. These are airing "High airing" mentioned. --Famberhorst (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--LivioAndronico talk 20:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm sorry, but I need something featurable here. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too boring (composition?) and per ArionEstar. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others + weak encyclopaedic photo, D kuba (talk) 09:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, sorry. --Kadellar (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination.Thank you all for the comments and assessment.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frans Post - Gezicht op Olinda, Brazilië.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2015 at 08:38:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Frans Prost - uploaded by BoH and Jan Arkesteijn - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 08:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 08:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 11:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 07:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Soundwaweserb (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support... And for those who don't know what a good caption is, please have a look to the file description page !--Jebulon (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gravelot à collier interrompu Salines de Thyna.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2015 at 10:02:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by Elgollimoh - uploaded by Elgollimoh - nominated by Touzrimounir -- Touzrimounir (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Touzrimounir (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really sharp, really nice. :) --Tremonist (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose Nice lighting but I think the ouf foreground is to disturbing. A nice images, but unfortunately not one of our finest bird image imo.--ArildV (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per ArildV Poc o² 18:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality is excellent but the blurred rock? in front is sooo distracting... composition issue. --Laitche (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Foreground. -- Pofka (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lilitik22 (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurred foregrounds are usual for this kind of birds and pictures. I like it. --Kadellar (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kamienny-falochron Sarbinowo.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2015 at 09:20:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Łukasz Śmigasiewicz - nominated by Halavar -- Halavar (talk) 09:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Halavar (talk) 09:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support f/29 but OK, special! --Laitche (talk) 09:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 11:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I dont get excited. Its a nice sunset and ok compositon. Nothing really original or interesting imo.--ArildV (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Laitche --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the fact that there is no frame, giving a never ending feeling Poc o² 18:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support After all, I promoted it to QI. Daniel Case (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lilitik22 (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am with ArildV.--Jebulon (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sant'Andrea della Valle (Roma) - Dome.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2015 at 11:50:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info The fresco decoration of Sant'Andrea's dome was one of the largest commissions of its day. The work was disputed by two Carracci pupils, Giovanni Lanfranco and Domenichino. In 1608, Lanfranco had been chosen by Cardinal Alessandro, but the Ludovisi papacy of Pope Gregory XV favored the Bolognese Domenichino. In the end, both artists were employed, and Lanfranco's lavish dome decoration (completed 1627) set the model for such decorations for the following decades. This dome was for a long time the third largest dome in Rome, after the Basilica of St Peter and the Pantheon. All by LivioAndronico talk 11:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico talk 11:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really beautiful. --Tremonist (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done Slaunger... --Laitche (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Laitche,but I was also before --LivioAndronico talk 14:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--Laitche (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Funny comment, Laitche

-- Slaunger (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also this before me

--LivioAndronico talk 20:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support--ArildV (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful! -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting subject and good quality. But you should really try HDR. It's very easy with Lightroom 6. --Code (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Code here and sorry for interrupting the party that overexposed area in a non-symmetry spot is spoiling it to me. This shot should have been executed using a HDR technique. Poc o² 18:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poco exist also the Neutral. Digo esto .... si quería probarlo --LivioAndronico talk 21:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I make use sometimes of the neutral vote, because I feel that I have something to contribute with in a nomination, sometimes I just don't participate in the nomination. In this case I opposed because I feel that I have to oppose. The execution is not at FP level IMO and the quality or subject doesn't compensate that. Poc o² 12:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Esperamos que una vez que te sientes neutral --LivioAndronico talk 12:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Code but the point is that I do not have my camera in the HDR therefore face the speech: 1) Do these photos is not easy otherwise it says that are not centered! 2) I haven't the HDR in my Nikon D3200 so should I put my camera on the ground, change the position 2 or 3 times and put it back in the same spot (I point out that while I had the camera on the ground (I put it on the ground because I can not use a tripod, I challenge anyone to use a tripod in a church in the center of Rome, a priest with clear German accent and honestly very similar to Ratzinger told me: Finish do these antics and go out to them ... this is a church). 3) in addition, the domes are therefore always on the altar in a place where you can not go unnoticed. Grazie per il supporto --LivioAndronico talk 20:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. I didn't know that the D3200 doesn't even support automatic exposure bracketing. Even the smaller Canons like my old 500D support AEB. You should buy yourself a new camera soon, I think your pictures would definitely benefit from a better equipment. P.S.: I hope you're not really putting the camera upon the altar, are you? However, the photo is good and the subject is nice. But it would definitely be better if you had used HDR. --Code (talk) 06:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really surprised that the churches in Rome are so strict about tripods. Very few in England (or France) care about tripods. It might be a church but it is also a historical architectural building and should be documented well. After all, you're not destroying the sanctity simply by taking a photo! In fact, many people cause much more of a problem in a church by using a bad quality cheap camera with automatic flash turned on. The flash is so much more distracting for the visitors to the church than a tripod! Well, at least now I know not to bother trying to take photos in churches in Rome. But if I do visit, I'll definitely try to see how many times I can get away with a photo though. ;-) Diliff (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So will but my bank balance think very differently --LivioAndronico talk 14:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --· Favalli ⟡ 23:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support God natural tones. I am not fan of HDR tonality. Maybe Anglo-Saxon world could bear it (Gothic especially), since there are no such lively frescos and colors like in Romanic Italy. I am wondering what maestros would say when they see their masterpiece in HDR colors. Rather see when is good time (light), you have strong sun now, i would wait for cloudy day for this one. --Mile (talk) 07:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Better to have a little more noise than this overexposure. Ideally, of course, this would be done as a HDRi. — Julian H.^✈ 11:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Σπάρτακος (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think the overexposed area spoils the picture, it's part of the natural light at the moment. --Xicotencatl (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oculus seems not centered. The overexposed area is a pity. Very good place, nice shot, but, need of HDR or not, I agree with Poco here.--Jebulon (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed. Yann (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Info Demoted/Delisted to not featured per this consensus. --Cart (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baptistry of Neon ceiling mosaic (Ravenna).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2015 at 13:59:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info The ceiling mosaic in the Baptistry of Neon. Ravenna, Italy. Built around 6th century A.D. UNESCO World heritage site. All by --Mile (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks great. :) --Tremonist (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--LivioAndronico talk 17:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive ! --Jebulon (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jebulon! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 01:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The light reflection is not even, otherwise nice. Yann (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Smogorówka Dolistowska - rainbow.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2015 at 22:43:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely --LivioAndronico talk 22:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Livio, miss the exif... --Laitche (talk) 03:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice but nothing that I'd call extraordinary. The buildings are just that, buildings without anything special and the partial rainbow is pretty but the result is not at FP level to me, sorry. Poc o² 12:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Poco. Rainbow is not striking enough to offset ordinariness of buildings and flat land. Daniel Case (talk) 04:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposers. --Cayambe (talk) 08:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this is good landscape photo with nice light and the colors, the rainbow is also important factor in this photo but it's like kind of a garnish or decoration so partial rainbow is no problem for me :) --Laitche (talk) 10:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Laitche --Tremonist (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional oppose No color-space metadata and no embedded color profile: Windows and Mac browsers and apps treat colors randomly (even on a calibrated monitor). -- Slaunger (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info Demoted to 'not featured' due to sock double vote. 4 October 2018. --Cart (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wroceń - wooden house.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2015 at 22:40:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Lovely, though slightly unsharp. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support -- Pofka (talk) 09:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. It's nice, but I don't find it quite strong enough in the combination of composition, subject and quality for it to be at FP level. — Julian H.^✈ 11:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Julian, if the landscape in the sorroundings is nice you could have de-centered the subject Poc o² 12:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Subject without much wow, usual small size, sorry. --DXR (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In addition to others, I would note the overly subdued color and apparently unsharp roof. I can see what you wanted to do, but this might be better in the summertime, with the leaves out in full and a clear blue sky in the background. Daniel Case (talk) 04:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Far too much empty bottom, a crop just below the first tree is more striking IMO. -- Christian Ferrer 04:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Tremonist (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Color space tagged as sRGB, without an embedded color profile: Windows and Mac browsers and apps treat the colors randomly (even on a calibrated monitor). -- Slaunger (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]

File:Айсберг в районе ЗФИ.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2015 at 17:01:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Iceberg at Franz-Josef Land Reserve, Arkhangelsk Oblast, Russia / Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created by Nixette - uploaded by Nixette - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality isn't the best but the composition is real good --LivioAndronico talk 17:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Замечательно. Splendid. --Mile (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lilitik22 (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 13:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Livio and wow. --Laitche (talk) 13:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a composition! -- Pofka (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support D kuba (talk) 09:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Image has an embedded AdobeRGB color profile. This is very good for printing purposes, but sRGB is the recommended for web use. Some popular web browsers ignore embedded color profiles, meaning users of those browsers see the wrong colors for this image. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ravenna Park - birdcage 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2015 at 01:52:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
Info created by Jmabel - uploaded by Jmabel - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 01:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 01:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unfortunately, for quality issues (CAs) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Martin and miss a bird... --Laitche (talk) 10:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. -- Pofka (talk) 10:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Color space tagged as sRGB, without an embedded color profile. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Pine^✉ 18:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Textura dos Lençois.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2015 at 10:45:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Dante Laurini Jr - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Small resolution, but wow is great. Nice textures. -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small.--Jebulon (talk) 12:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the resolution is acceptable. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent！！！ _{but too small for this type of fotos...} --Laitche (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You should ask to the uploader a original size photo. D800 produces a away bigger ones. I think that he scale down the photo just because it's a contest and to kept the original "safe". The main point that I like on this photo is that he did not over processed as other photos that he shared. In the other hand, seeing the "winners" of this "contest"... heavy processing ftw!!! -- RTA 08:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Per others. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pops Restaurant, Route 66, Arcadia, Oklahoma, 04404a.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2015 at 21:49:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Carol M. Highsmith, uploaded and nominated by -- Yann (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition and the colors. -- Yann (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Several dust spots, noisy and IMO too unsharp. --XRay ^talk 07:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per XRay. --Laitche (talk) 10:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Laitche: Same as above. Looking at it at 6 Mpx (3000 x 2000), it looks quite OK. At least not worse than your own picture with a similar resolution... I will correct the dust spots. Yann (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Yann: Even this zise (3000 x 1888) this photo is not sharp and noisy and distorted. I think importance of resolution is depend on the subject :) --Laitche (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree, I think it looks bad even at even smaller resolutions than 6 megapixels. The top 'straw' is obviously very out of focus and the rest is soft too. It's a great subject and great composition but I'm surprised that a photographer of her supposed calibre released such a technically poor image. Diliff (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even if Mrs Highsmith is obviously a "sacred cow", I'm afraid this pic is far from our FP standards here, per Xray arguments. A pity, it looks appealing as thumbnail.--Jebulon (talk) 12:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As other. --Mile (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ No color-space metadata and no embedded color profile. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Yann (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, Yann, indeed it is fixed now. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. -- Pofka (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Yann (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2015 (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: Well, no more chance, a lot of opposers...--Jebulon (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2015 (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:Saint Francis Xavier Cathedral Interior.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2015 at 09:31:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created by Chris Rand - uploaded by Rauglothgor - nominated by Mad astronaut -- Mad astronaut (talk) 09:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mad astronaut (talk) 09:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Verticals --The Photographer (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree. And lacks sharpness a bit. --Tremonist (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unnatural colors. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp. -- Pofka (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp, and distorted.--Jebulon (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2015 (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: global lack of quality, many opposers.--Jebulon (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2015 (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:Dýrafjörður, Vestfirðir, Islandia, 2014-08-15, DD 037 PAN.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2015 at 12:32:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info 4-frames panorama of Dýrafjörður, one of the fjords comprising the Westfjords and situated between the fjords Arnarfjörður, in the South and Önundarfjörður, in the North. Dýrafjörður belongs to the municipality of Ísafjarðarbær and the fjord is 9 km wide and stretches 32 km into the land. All by me, Poc o² 12:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 12:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice view, I like this colors, reflections and the mood :) --Laitche (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Laitche:

CA removed, thanks for the note Poc o² 15:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I like it also but please see notes. --ArildV (talk) 12:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArildV:

stitching issues solved, thanks for the notes Poc o² 15:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Support now--ArildV (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak oppose~~ It's a nice view, but the technical execution is imo not good enough to clear the FP threshold: Upper left corner is very close to blown (perhaps recovered from white) and the sharpness in the center part is not good enough for the size of the image (looking at the white buildings/tents). Sorry. --DXR (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DXR:

Overexposure issue solved, about the sharpness I am not sure, I couldn't see a noticeable drop of sharpness, could you add a note? Poc o² 15:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's much better regarding the clouds! I think your second frame from the left is shaky-blurred, which is quite unfortunate. I'm going

Neutral because that version certainly improves a lot. The sharpness issue can be seen quite easily when you follow the close side of the fjord.--DXR (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support I had a bit of doubt about the colors in remote targets here. It reminds me a bit of my personal pictures I've taken during my holidays where the main subject is located in a far distance (just like in this picture). I was strongly disappointed when I saw my pictures as they were just incomparable with the real view I saw. I think this picture has just the same issue, because colors depth is just incomparable with those around rocks and those behind the river, which looks quite toneless. Another picture nominated below with quite remote mountains as well doesn't have such issue, so I guess it is possible to solve this somehow. Still, despite this issue the picture is appealing and worth support. -- Pofka (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pofka: I've played around with the WB and came to the conclusion that the current colors are quite loyal to reality. Can you give me a hint (bluish, greenish,...)? Poc o² 17:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added note where I think it is too pale. I think it should look much greener live. Only the remote (where I noted) parts have issues for me. All these rocks, bushes at the bottom are of a great tone. -- Pofka (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I am not sure whether there is an issue and whether I should do some local correction. I'd like to hear other opinions Poc o² 17:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Issues noted, but on balance I think it works. Daniel Case (talk) 06:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:London Skyline from Waterloo Bridge, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2015 at 11:25:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Certainly a great panorama of London. :) --Tremonist (talk) 12:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Tremonist. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good sharpness, fascinating reflections. --Laitche (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support great detail on the church, as usual. --Kadellar (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Church? Are you sure you didn't mean to vote on my other nomination? ;-) Well, there is St Paul's Cathedral in the background but I wouldn't say it's great detail!)Diliff (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just kidding! --Kadellar (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support It may not be a church, but I like it anyway. --Pine^✉ 01:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Kadellar. ;oD Yann (talk) 06:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Professional. --Johann Jaritz Sämtlich(talk)
Support --XRay ^talk 16:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Supporting your pictures is a waste of time. They should go directly to FP category after upload. lol -- Pofka (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Saint-Séverin Ambulatory, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2015 at 11:32:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support It would be very useful that anyone could create a button to automatically vote.

if ((Religious_buildings) && (Author=="User:Diliff") ){ cout<<"\n*{{support}} ~~~"; }

'~'

--The Photographer (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, well it could be nice to code buttons that could automate a vote anyway, a bit like POTY voting maybe. Diliff (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The Photographer: you forgot '~' .--Laitche (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Photographer: Yes, that's what I meant... --Laitche (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like this mood :) --Laitche (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the others. --Tremonist (talk) 12:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lilitik22 (talk) 13:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 17:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, sorry for Tomascastelazo.--Jebulon (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, he hasn't voted yet, so nothing to be sorry for here. I'm still expecting his oppose vote for 'too much distortion' or something similar though! Diliff (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What'd I miss?--LivioAndronico talk 15:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every nomination of mine, he opposes. No exceptions. Diliff (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really David? I had not noticed --LivioAndronico talk 17:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ever since I had an argument with him on the FPC talk page, he has opposed every nomination (in which he votes). Sometimes he doesn't vote, but if he does, it is 100% oppose. I asked him to stop voting on my nominations because I don't trust his motives, but he refused. Diliff (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question And who de hell do you think you are to ask someone to not vote in this process? An infalable gifted guru or some crap like that? Or do you enjoy special privileges around here? As far as my motives, your are absolutely clueless. I think, however, as you venture to distrust my motives without reason, that you are a tantrum prone crybaby when someone calls you out on your not so top of the line photographs. ;) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have to go around in circles calling each other names again? It's pointless. I wasn't talking to you. I only mentioned it to explain to Livio the issue I have with you. It wasn't an invitation to start a fight again. Diliff (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ... but what a bunch of silly crybabies including Jebulon and Diliff. @ Jebulon your comment is a crude attempt at trolling and baiting and is completely out of line. @ Diliff I do not oppose every single nomination of yours, while I have opposed some of your images on the same grounds that many other oppose your or somebodyelse´s nominations and even on the same grounds that you oppose others, that does not constitute "every nomination" or "Every nomination of mine, he opposes. No exceptions." So basically you are lying, and someone who lies, is a liar. A good photographer, and a liar. All it takes is one single example to prove your lies. The truth is that I abstain most of the time because while I think that your craftsmanship is absolutely top of the line, your themes get a little boring for me. I was going to support this image when it came out because it is a different approach and it is pretty neat in my opinion, but did not get around to do it. I am glad I did not! I find your ego trip quite amusing. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You have opposed every nomination of mine in which you have voted, which I clarified in my next reply to Livio. Show me a single vote on my nominations that isn't an oppose and I'll take it all back. I said already that you haven't voted in all of them (abstaining, in other words). Nothing I said is in disagreement with you on that. Diliff (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are parsing your words. Abstaining is a way of voting anyway, just as neutral. Is voting support the only option for your images? And in any case, this vote proves you wrong. And this vote is consistent with my views. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An abstain is a conscious decision not to vote either on the affirmative or negative. Your version of abstaining is not a 'vote'. It's the absence of a vote. According to the dictionary: Synonyms: not vote, decline/refuse to vote. Do I abstain from every nomination that I don't vote in? No. Most of them I don't even pay enough attention to consider voting. I have no idea what your thought processes are on nominations that you don't vote on and I don't claim to. All I know is that (until now anyway) you always voted oppose if you voted on my nominations. Your support vote here doesn't 'prove me wrong' because my claim was correct at the time I said it. I never made a prediction about your future voting patterns. Your logic is terrible. Diliff (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Today I have better things to do than to engage in useless prose and rethorical bs... ;) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you even bother engaging in the first place then? Ah yes, because you enjoy stirring things up and calling people names but you're not interested in actually separating truth from false. Diliff (talk) 08:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let´s see if you a man true to his word, and let me quote you "Show me a single vote on my nominations that isn't an oppose and I'll take it all back." Your words above... well, here it is #D is gonna have to eat a little something [[4]]. ;) I am waiting... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK then I take it back. You supported one nomination. I must have missed that because I honestly didn't remember you supporting any. Diliff (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Easy does it. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Pofka (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Xanthoria parietina 02.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2015 at 06:19:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi
Info Common orange lichen (Xanthoria parietina) on the bark of a fruit tree. Close-up image with approx. 3 cm diagonal. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 11:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's curious! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 06:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting subject, I like this... yellow? --Laitche (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice hues. --Johann Jaritz Sämtlich(talk)
Support -- Pofka (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi

File:Amsterdam - Beer House - 0289.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2015 at 17:24:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created & uploaded by Jorgeroyan - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs perspective correction and the person on the right should be cropped out. Still little wow. --Code (talk) 04:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per Code. --Tremonist (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's an interesting place, there are some good things about this image. However, some important bits are cut where they shouldn't be, some more dynamic range might help and what Code said. — Julian H.^✈ 16:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Озеро Фролиха, Вид со скалы на губе Аяя.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2015 at 20:45:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Mousesanya - nominated by A.Savin --A.Savin 20:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 20:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Neutral Very nice mood and composition, I like this lighting, clouds and the water colors. --Laitche (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Per others. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow indeed. J e e 03:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Voted too fast on this. Clouds are problem. --Mile (talk) 08:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed, artificial colors. --DXR (talk) 08:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per DXR. It looks too unnatural. -- Pofka (talk) 08:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The water in shadows is also problem, I knew when I voted though I think it's an unusual and nice photo :) --Laitche (talk) 09:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Badly processed HDR. Very unnatural.--Nino Verde (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think HDR looks unnatural is normal (night sky of HDR is blue and the moon looks like the sun...) and FP is not QI :) --Laitche (talk) 10:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed. --Xicotencatl (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Umm, I am guessing this water colors are natural phenomenon but if that colors are caused by HDR, I will change my vote to oppose. Would someone be able to confirm that? --Laitche (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not even sure that the image is an HDR. But the clouds are really odd: normally clouds have a blueish hue (that is more blue than green and red), but here they are perfect gray (eg. 193-193-193), imho the result of active desaturation. Only the small part above the lake is purple, which is quite sloppy editing. I am not saying that it is wrong to like the result visually, but EV is certainly badly impaired by - for documentary purposes - inappropriate editing. --DXR (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a HDR, I think the sky and the mountains in the upper part were too blue in the opinion of the author and he tried to desaturate the 30% top of the image. -- Christian Ferrer 18:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, maybe Christian is right, means this image is not HDR and not overprocessed but just under-saturated, in any case I change my vote to neutral for now. --Laitche (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And if the creator purposely change the colors but I have no idea what is the purpose? ... --Laitche (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Artificial and overocessed. Especially the sky.--Jebulon (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Unnatural-looking, per other opposers. Daniel Case (talk) 06:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Tremonist (talk) 13:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014 Nysa, zespół kościoła św. Jakuba Starszego i św. Agnieszki.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2015 at 09:20:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 09:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 09:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Xicotencatl (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sharpness is very good but the distortion on the left side an at the bottom is quite strong. I think there is too much space at the bottom anyway. Maybe you can crop it differently? --Code (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Code:

DoneI don't want to cut from the bottom more, the reason the tree. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I don't know. The distortion on the left is still there. I stay Neutral here. --Code (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Looks too chaotic and it's difficult to find the main subject of it. That street with modern cars doesn't work with the old town buildings for me. QP, maybe? But not FP. -- Pofka (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 04:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice view. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks overexposed although it shouldn't ... was too much brightening applied during processing? Daniel Case (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: The picture was correctly exposed. If you want I can send you a raw file. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 06:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Opera house Opernplatz Mitte Hannover Germany.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2015 at 09:28:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Christian A. Schröder - uploaded by ChristianSchd - nominated by Mad astronaut -- Mad astronaut (talk) 09:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mad astronaut (talk) 09:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs a crop in the lower part. --Tremonist (talk) 12:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the composition doesn't works for me: too much place in the foreground. He, he, the roman number on the building is wrong?!: it must be: MDCCCXLV. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

_{"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not."} --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

_{@Martin: I think they need reading glasses. --Laitche (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

_{@Alchemist-hp: IIII instead of IV for 4 (see clocks), XXXX instead of XL for 40, CCCC instead of CD for 400 are rather common in modern roman numeration...}💐--Jebulon (talk) 00:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Top crop too tight. — Julian H.^✈ 16:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dampflokomotive 52 5448-7 im Bahnhof von Leipzig.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2015 at 01:39:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Added FP category. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 04:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject is nice but the resolution is quite small and the background looks completely blown out. Can you improve the picture? --Code (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The first looking feels nice but busy background, the sky is blown out, a bit small for this subject, composition doesn't work for me, sorry. --Laitche (talk) 09:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't much mind the sky is blown - it is an indoor photo and an overcast sky is featureless and white whether you clip it or not. But these old trains can be much more photogenically captured than this. Plus 4.5MP is insufficient for this kind of photo at FP. -- Colin (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Tremonist (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2015 Kłodzko, ul. Dusznicka, myjnia samochodowa 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2015 at 17:41:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles
Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting action picture. :) --Tremonist (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thumb up. --Johann Jaritz Sämtlich(talk)
Support -- Pofka (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 02:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Interesting shot but front face of the car is in shadow even if this light was necessary for this shot. --Laitche (talk) 09:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Laitche. Backlight is necessary for the water, but some kind of flash from the front would have made it really better, sorry. --Kadellar (talk) 14:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wrong light, subject uninteresting to me, too trivial, no 'wow'.--Jebulon (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above. --Karelj (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --El Grafo (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Berdorf (LU), Werschrummschloeff -- 2015 -- 6230-4.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2015 at 16:00:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created , uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 16:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 16:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gorgeous gorge! :) --Tremonist (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good idea, good "eye", good achievement !--Jebulon (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little bit overexposed sky, but nice anyway. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support very beutiful images, I dont mind the overexposed sky here but I think the highlights settings (-82) actually make the sky look worse.--ArildV (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation. I will check this. If this improves the image, I'll upload the better one. --XRay ^talk 19:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice HDR image, I like this green and brown. Would you remove the strange borders on the four edges, probably 2 or 3 pixels each. --Laitche (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed I just removed the green and red borders. Thanks for your hint, Laitche. The overexposed sky was improved too. Thanks, ArildV, ArionEstar. And only one additional improvement: A better resolution.--XRay ^talk 04:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yep. --Johann Jaritz Sämtlich(talk)
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know the place :-) --Cayambe (talk) 08:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 20:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Carl Nielsen c. 1908 - Restoration.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2015 at 15:25:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by Georg Lindstrøm - restored, uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice portrait, good restoration. Yann (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann. --Tremonist (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes - per Yann --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support yeah - per Yann --Laitche (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 17:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Yann. --Pugilist (talk) 11:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nostalgic. --Johann Jaritz Sämtlich(talk)
Support -- Pofka (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional oppose A pity, I was planning to support his (with a slight national bias perhaps ;-) ), but the jpg has no color-space metadata and no embedded color profile, which means colors may be treated randomly depending on the SW used for viewing the photo. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Slaunger: Fixed. Yann (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Verified! Thanks, Yann! -- Slaunger (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Slaunger (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 10:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Iglesia de la Sagrada Trinidad, Gniezno, Polonia, 2014-09-17, DD 30-32 HDR.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2015 at 21:08:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info View of the main nave of the Holy Trinity church, Gniezno, first capital of Poland. The gothic church was built in 1430 and rebuilt after a fire in 1613. The interior furnishing of the temple mostly dates from the 18th century. All by me, Poc o² 21:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 21:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support a bit too shadowed but well done Dili･･･ --Laitche (talk) 13:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsahrp on some places, need to use tripod and stack. Geometry is somehow "twisted". Bad light and not so rich interior we are used to see here. --Mile (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I used a tripod. Othwerise there would be no way to manage a HDR like this. Poc o² 15:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks ok to me. --Tremonist (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It actually looks twisted, just like Mile already said. -- Pofka (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry,per Mile --LivioAndronico talk 17:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, it doesn't look twisted, it is twisted (assuming that under "twisted" you mean that it isn't symmetric) Poc o² 18:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Poco, seems you should avoid twisted subject... --Laitche (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition doesn't convince me. It looks like some space is missing at the bottom. --Code (talk) 09:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KlausFoehl (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kapelle der Versöhnung.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2015 at 18:23:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info The Chapel of Reconciliation on the grounds of the Berlin Wall Memorial on Bernauer Strasse in Berlin. The chapel was designed by the architects Peter Sassenroth and Rudolf Reitermann and inaugurated on 9 November 2000. Why do I think this is more than just QI? Maybe it doesn’t have the WOW of a sunset mountain panorama, but I still think this could be FP. Taking this photo was significantly more difficult than it might seem. The chapel has a very unfavorable location. It is oriented to the north and that’s why there’s only a very short time window each day in which some morning sunbeams touch the chapel. I went there a hundred times to get a good light situation. Even when the light is good the chapel is not easy to photograph because the dynamic range is very large. It is hardly possible to get both the wooden poles and the interior well exposed. Therefore I used HDR in this case. Additionally it is quite difficult to get a picture of the chapel without people in front of it. The memorial site is very busy and normally dozens of school classes are running through the picture. The only thing I’m not sure about is the perspective. I'm not sure whether this is better? I’m looking forward to your opinions. All by me -- Code (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Code (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unusual chapel. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I appreciate your effort taking this photo (north facades are really bad as I know myself) and I also appreciate the detailed background information. The transparent architecture of the building is impressive, the photographic quality very high. For me there is one shortcoming: The distracting element at the left foreground destroying the inner silence of the photo. From this stance the other photo is better (but take a careful look, you've forgotten to crop a tiny element at the top left) --Tuxyso (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuxyso: Thank you very much for your detailed review which helped me a lot for my photographic formation. Do you think I should nominate the other picture instead or as an alternative? --Code (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest it as alternative. Both photos are too similiar. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I nominated it as an alternative. I will follow your suggestion and crop the tiny object on the left corner this evening when I'm back at my computer with Photoshop installed. --Code (talk) 07:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuxyso: I cropped the tiny element out now (in the alternative). Thanks again for your hint. --Code (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Extraordinary building indeed, but the capture of it is completely ordinary. There is nothing stunning in it which would make this picture different from the others. I think everyone could take such picture being there. That's why I think it would fit as QP much more. Pictures like this or this aren't worse in any way. Both of them are QP. -- Pofka (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I explained why the capture is anything but ordinary. Which different composition would you recommend? --Code (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that FP must have some kind of phenomena in it, which would cause WOW feeling and would be difficult to capture for others. Detailed and high resolution ordinary picture of a building doesn't have this, at least for me. Probably the main problem is the picture's subject/location as it doesn't seem to be worth more than QP: no mountains, no nature, no outstanding/luxurious/decorated architecture, etc. It is just a simple wooden chapel which at first might look exotic, but actually it isn't so. -- Pofka (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Original --LivioAndronico talk 08:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The subject is interesting but the composition is sort of ordinary and front face (I think the right side is front face) is ~~not illuminated~~ in shadow. --Laitche (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Laitche. As I said - unfortunately the front is always in shadow. I don't know how one could make a better picture of the chapel - maybe with a big external flash or something. Do you have an idea? --Code (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any idea... I only can say, It can't be helped.　If I were you, would give up this subject... --Laitche (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Something strange and unnatural in the sky at left. "Bandings" looks like a manual attempt to try to correct an overexposition...--Jebulon (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Jebulon, I have looked at this closely with Photoshop, altering the gamma which can often emphasise any banding, and I think these are just wispy clouds. -- Colin (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Code: , who is right ?--Jebulon (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Clouds. --Code (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid the exterior of this building isn't doing anything for me. Makes me think of these, sorry. However, this photo suggests there are better photographic opportunities inside. -- Colin (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: Are you telling me the chapel looks like a toilet? Is this some kind of insult or what? --Code (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: : Please take a careful look on the chapel. IMHO the transparent architecture is really remarkable. It is not friendly to link a picture of a toilet for comparison. --Tuxyso (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Support --Code (talk) 07:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 17:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good, the "hair light" at the top right of the building is the dot on the i :) --Tuxyso (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Also great. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Same as above, the sky at left is disturbing.--Jebulon (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per my comment above. -- Colin (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 08:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Polling machine Vouli tôn Hellinôn Hellenic parliament Athens.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2015 at 13:45:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 13:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the most important symbolic tools for the future of Europe, and maybe for the world during the days to come: an electronic polling machine at the seat of a Member of the Hellenic Parliament in Athens, Greece. Of course this picture is unique, and was very difficult to take. The words on the screen mean: "Assembly of the Hellenes", with the symbol of the Parliament. I was very lucky to be able to take this picture, and of course, this is to be shared in "Commons" !!-- Jebulon (talk) 13:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Funny (or not...), notice the german brand name...)[reply]
- The German brand name on the polling machine is a constant reminder to the Greeks who their true overlords are, I suppose. ;-) Diliff (talk) 08:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Support ~~The screen is dirty and I added some recomendation (notes), however,~~ this work is wow for me --The Photographer (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for review and support. The screen is not really dirty (not very clean neither...), but there are just some little "holes" on the glass.--Jebulon (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Focus is a little bit small at the bottom of the picture, but wow for me too. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It certainly has high educational value but the corners are blurry and there's blue CA all around. The bottom should be cropped. Not one of the best pictures here on Commons, I'm afraid. --Code (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for review and comment. Yes, this is the best we have on "Commons", because there is no other ! Please take the same in the Bundestag or in the House of Representatives ! Yes I agree it is not technically excellent, but I claim for mitigating circumstances... About the frieze: no, I won't crop it out, this kind of motive is named Greek key ! It seems accurate, isn't it ?

--Jebulon (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Some years ago I worked in the Bundestag but I can't remember that they had polling machines and I believe they still don't have. In the TV news we see the members of parliament only use ballot boxes. Concerning the picture I think it should be VI but not QI or FP. For me, FP is always something like a QI with either a great WOW or a great educational value. Your picture has the latter, but it doesn't meet the quality standards. And the educational value / WOW-effect is not that great that I would accept mitigating circumstances. Just to explain my vote. I hope you understand. --Code (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do, thanks.--Jebulon (talk) 09:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Done CA corrected, thanks. --Jebulon (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Content and the story might be interesting, but solely reduced to the photographic quality I see nothing special here. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- For "solely reduced to the photographic quality", please go to Quality Images Candidates page.--Jebulon (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Go to the Valued Images page :) The "photograpic quality" is not equivalent with quality image but also includes mood, light, compositon, eye-catching effect. For me (it might be seen differently by others) nothing else but the photographic aspects (better term) matter for FP, not the historical relevance. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine with me. Old discussion about what is/should/could/would be a FP. Not my opinion, but I can understand yours. Thanks for sharing yours.--Jebulon (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Tremonist (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment New version uploaded.--Jebulon (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Solar Dynamics Observatory Sees M7.9-Class Solar Flare.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2015 at 14:31:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
Info created by NASA/SDO - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Resolution is a little bit small but acceptable, no problem about this. IMHO, the main problems are the very unreal colors and the blur. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per others --Tremonist (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lilitik22 (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have uploaded a higher resolution version of the image. The colours are artificial as this is actually a blended image of light with wavelengths of 131 and 171 Angstroms (UV). I have added this info to the image notes. Originalwana (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the higher resolution. --Yann (talk) 06:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk)
~~Conditional oppose~~ No color-space metadata and no embedded color profile: Windows and Mac browsers and apps treat colors randomly (even on a calibrated monitor). -- Slaunger (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, this is a fake colour photo anyway, so there is no "real" colour to preserve through a profile. Still, not ideal. — Julian H.^✈ 16:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Julian Herzog: Yes, but the artistic choice of fake colors is ambiguous without proper color space metadata. Luckily fixed now.-- Slaunger (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Slaunger: Fixed. Yann (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Verified, thanks, Yann. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Туманний світанок на нарцисовому полі.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2015 at 19:32:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Larisa Uhryn - uploaded by Larisa Uhryn - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer 19:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 19:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely like this one too. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice finding :) --Laitche (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't know... sure, the mood is awesome, but the blown hightlights are imo a bit too much here. Not that I'd know how to avoid them. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed with obvios banding. This could be great photo with some -EV. Burnt part is just too big. --Mile (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others --Tremonist (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning timing. -- Pofka (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry per Martin --LivioAndronico talk 17:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lilitik22 (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 07:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Completely unnecessary grey clipping. Should just be overexposed, looks really strange as it is. — Julian H.^✈ 15:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposes. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Grey clipping.--Jebulon (talk) 09:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]

File:Gherkin Cheesegrater Abstract.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2015 at 08:44:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info The glass side of "The Cheesegrater" (122 Leadenhall Street) reflecting "The Gherkin" (30 St Mary Axe). The internal structure and lifts are brightly coloured. All by Colin. -- Colin (talk) 08:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 08:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree, construction and reflections are special. --Tremonist (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. — Julian H.^✈ 15:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The quality is enough good. The reflections, colors and idea are a bit weak for FP, imho. --Laitche (talk) 09:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition idea. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The light is dull and neither subject, nor composition fascinate me that much. Maybe this would work better in black/white. --Code (talk) 04:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Glory of St. Catherine.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2015 at 11:51:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info All by -- LivioAndronico talk 11:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico talk 11:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mile (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done... ..._Livio. --Laitche (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. --Yann (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Concerted. --Johann Jaritz Sämtlich(talk)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support :-) --XRay ^talk 14:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful painting well photographed --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question The image page could give more information: in which church is this, who is the artist? --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Uoaei1,thanks --LivioAndronico talk 20:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Günəbaxan.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2015 at 10:42:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Kangarli, Arazboyu State Nature Sanctuary)

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Orxanr89 - uploaded by Orxanr89 - nominated by Interfase -- Interfase (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Interfase (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many blurred parts. Especially those in the lower part of the picture tend to disturb the viewer. --Tremonist (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tremonist. --Cayambe (talk) 07:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interfase, the author should be closer to the subject in order to create a better result, and fill the frame with the subject, I suggested a crop in image note. However, even if you crop, the image is not sharp, mainly because the equipment (and not use heavy technique, as staking images, to overcame this issue). -- RTA 08:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. -- Pofka (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lizard on the rock.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2015 at 10:40:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Murad Уldar - uploaded by Murad Уldar - nominated by Interfase -- Interfase (talk) 10:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Interfase (talk) 10:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad composition, too much empty space at right. Focus is behind the eye, which is not really on focus. Most of the animal is unfocused as well. --Kadellar (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark, too unsharp. --Tremonist (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Focus issues. -- Pofka (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mähu kivid II.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2015 at 05:39:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Ireen Trummer - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 05:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 05:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice composition. Maybe a little bit too much sky. --Tremonist (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice atmosphere! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! --XRay ^talk 19:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, unusual colors, I like this reflection. --Laitche (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Introspective. --Johann Jaritz Sämtlich(talk)
Support -- Christian Ferrer 16:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good, but please add an English description. --Code (talk) 06:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Kruusamägi (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 12:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Berdorf (LU), Werschrummschloeff -- 2015 -- 6314.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2015 at 18:13:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created, uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 18:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 18:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice kind of stairs in very natural surroundings. :)--Tremonist (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry no wow --LivioAndronico talk 17:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "I must say that a worst reason for voting against I do not think you could find"--Jebulon (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't beleive Jebulon. The picture is not impressively for me, it does not lack a signature ...--LivioAndronico talk 16:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose missing colors. --Laitche (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Red, green, blue? Sorry, I found just all kinds of brown. ;-) IMO that's special for this picture. A wooden stair and brown leafs. --XRay ^talk 17:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I got what this photo is aiming (I guess) so I think the target is not enough for FP, means missing something... I think most easy to plus something is colors :) --Laitche (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cygnus olor cygnet Hampton Court.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2015 at 13:53:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Anatidae (Ducks, geese, and swans)
Info created by William Warby - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 13:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 13:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's sharp enough, the waterdrop at the beak is nice. :)--Tremonist (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very sharp, but uninteresting point of view (too high). Get down to the ground next time! --Kadellar (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pyramids of the Giza Necropolis.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2015 at 20:30:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info All by KennyOMG. For some reason there's a real shortage of decent images of the Pyramids. Current FP is much lower quality and also missing the 3 queens' tombs on the right side. -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support KennyOMG (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info Current FP, File:All Gizah Pyramids.jpg. --Laitche (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, much better. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, Thanks KennyOMG :) --Laitche (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 06:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose right side too bright, unfavorable light. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think we can keep both of two in this case. --Laitche (talk) 10:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Alchemist, overexposed, hard light. --Mile (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others --Tremonist (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Light might really require improvement, but still it looks great due its angle. -- Pofka (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry,too bright --LivioAndronico talk 17:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition and quality. High educational value. Very good. --Code (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 12:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional oppose No color-space metadata and no embedded color profile: Windows and Mac browsers and apps treat colors randomly (even on a calibrated monitor). -- Slaunger (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Slaunger:

Done Embedded sRGB color profile. --Laitche (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Verified! Thanks, Laitche

. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As above - light. --Karelj (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as others. Too bright. --Yann (talk) 08:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olympus Zuiko OM 50 mm lens.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2015 at 10:26:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info Lens Olympus Zuiko OM 50 mm f/1.8 with visible 6 diaphragm blades which create aperture opening. Set to f/2.8 where blades are best seen. Stack of 2 photos.
Support -- Mile (talk) 10:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Bad crop, the bottom of the lens is chopped off. Sorry. —Bruce1ee^talk 11:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Its embedded (on soft surface), not choped. And it looks better than done on desk, which i did also. So will stay as it is. --Mile (talk) 12:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. Maybe "bad crop" was a bad choice of words, but the lens is still "chopped" by the soft surface, which I feel interferes with its circular shape. —Bruce1ee^talk 12:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The circular shape of the lens is not fully visible due to its being embedded, all right. This doesn't disturb me. The main problem is that the viewer imagines the circular shape's continuation that would take place outside the photo. This means the photo should not have been cropped this way, a little more of the soft surface should be visible, enough at least to close the circle. --Tremonist (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Tremonist and Bruce1ee. Additionally the background looks unfortunate. It should be clearer, I think. The upper corners look like vignetting. A plain white background would have been the better choice, I think. Sorry - but I suppose you can easily repeat this shot? --Code (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A good candidate for COM:VI, COM:QI and probably FPC at Wikipedia, but for Commons' FPC it's lacking something that sets it apart from all the other good pictures of photographic lenses. In other words: No "Wow". --El Grafo (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Mile (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC) P.S. Lets go back to churches.[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info Here is alternative, if you like it roundish. But i still prefer first one. --Mile (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Look, Mile, the lens does not need to be fully visible, but the circle needs to be closed in mind, thus the size of the picture would have to meet these requirements as stated above. Concerning this alternative, the background is entirely blurred and heterogenous, while a simple white wall or sheet of paper would have provided the contrast wished for. Don't you think so? Greetings, --Tremonist (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Or, alternatively, it isn't possible to depict what is behind the lens in focus (by making use of the lens)? --Tremonist (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose looks more pleasing than the other alternative, but still no "wow" for me. Also, the focus is somehow uneven with the letters at the top of the ring being less sharp than at the bottom. --El Grafo (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Mile (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Webysther 20150409032418 - Pitaya.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2015 at 16:48:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info created and uploaded by Webysther - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mismatch between license stated in Exif (CC-BY-NC 4.0 BR) and license on file page (CC BY-SA-4.0 International). I think it is rather unfortunate that the file alone indicates that no commercial resuse is allowed :-(. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to tight crop and too low DOF: a focus stack will be a better alternative. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alchemist plus blurred on the right. Besides that, I really like the colours. --Tremonist (talk) 12:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Artefacts at the bottom, tight crop, lack of DOF, not sharp enough, but I'm glad... -- RTA 13:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Great Hall, Library of Congress Thomas Jefferson Building, Washington, D.C. View of first and second floors, with Minerva mosaic in background. (LOC).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2015 at 13:07:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created by Carol M. Highsmith, uploaded and nominated by -- Yann (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exquisite shot with color profile :) --Laitche (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is awful (i would crop stairs, and a bit on the top), burnt areas all over horiznot. Maybe QI. --Mile (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

orz --Laitche (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I agree with Mile, the composition is poor. It's difficult to find a good framing for this interior though because no matter how wide you go, you're always cropping something. I actually shot this a long time ago (almost 10 years!) with a spherical projection. It's an interior view that is only really done justice with a proper 360x180 degree view I think. I'd love to go back and shoot it with a more advanced technique. As for this image though, it's very average. Look at the reflection on the tiles below the middle arch. It looks like someone has done a really poor job of masking or cloning something there, and it ended up being a blob of solid colour. I know it was taken in 2007, but it's pretty poor by modern standards. Diliff (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because of the blown windows. --Code (talk) 05:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. The column at right should be cropped out.--Jebulon (talk) 09:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed --LivioAndronico talk 12:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The hall looks quite natural to me the way it is depicted here. --Tremonist (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The question isn't so much whether it looks natural (although as I mentioned above, I suggest you look at the reflection on the tiles beneath the middle arch on the ground floor and tell me that looks natural), it's mostly about the composition (off centre and stairs cropped by the framing) and the image quality (look at the shadow detail and the texture of the building at 100%). It looks good at thumbnail size, but not good when viewed a bit more up close. It is high resolution which mitigates the image quality issues but overall I don't find it a particularly impressive photo to be honest. Anyway, not trying to change your vote, just explain what I and others were mentioning. Diliff (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Yann (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rock Creek Park, Washington, D.C., 04259a.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2015 at 21:51:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Carol M. Highsmith, uploaded and nominated by -- Yann (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some freshness... -- Yann (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really a nice mood! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 02:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Good winter image. A little bit noisy. --XRay ^talk 07:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems good on first sight, but opened is like bad scan (noise-unsharp). --Mile (talk) 07:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mile. --Laitche (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at it at 6 Mpx (3000 x 2000), it looks quite OK. At least not worse than your own picture with a similar resolution... Yann (talk) 11:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know you mean this, but 6Mpx for this kind of photos is no wow for me. This one is 18MP plus enough sharp and no noise, even that photo some voters opposed because of no wow... --Laitche (talk) 11:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ No colour space metadata or embedded colour profile in EXIF. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Slaunger: Fixed now. Yann (talk) 11:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks you, Yann. I checked, and it is indeed fixed now. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pleasant in low resolution, but way too unsharp for a FP. -- Pofka (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent composition. Sharpness is fine at 6 MP. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Visible even from the preview there is a big blur centre-top, a bit too the left. --C messier (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this was taken in low light, so slow speed, and a branch moved at that time. Yann (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The blur I describe looks more like it was shot behind a window that had water drops on it. --C messier (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, no reason for FP nomination. --Karelj (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is beautiful, but suffers from problems at higher resolution. --Tremonist (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Yann (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yellow Jesus.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2015 at 16:06:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created and uploaded dabldy - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very wow, but I think the blurry birds should be cloned out. Then it would get my support. --Code (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. -- Pofka (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 17:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Support~~ I like it with birds. Some too artsy colors but very good mood. Maybe with crop to zoom-in would be even better. --Mile (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC) Opted for bottom version. --Mile (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Tremonist:~~ @PetarM: Maybe without crop. This one is a typical example that the clouds are nice at the composition and helps in the wow factor. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Christ is not centred, not in the thirds, all this deformed objects, by the lack of the quality of the lens, decreases the final result. RTA 23:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this Christ. And the "deformed objects" seem to be birds by the way. ArionEstar, why do you think I would be opposed to clouds? Pls lemme know. :) --Tremonist (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tremonist: Opps! Wrong reply! Sorry! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ArionEstar: Never mind! :-) --Tremonist (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lilitik22 (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 12:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose See the rules above: almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others... By the way, it's oversaturated. Not even a QI. --ViseMoD (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above.--Jebulon (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks overprocessed to me. — Julian H.^✈ 16:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is very processed. That might be ok, but I don't care for the effect here. The composition isn't great, with centred subject and the shape of the top dark cloud unfortunate. -- Colin (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As it's right now, no. -- RTA 15:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 1[edit]

Info Cloned stamped towers, birds, and other things, cropped to centralized Christ, and raised the black, and white, to give more contrast. -- RTA 23:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose over-processed. unnatural colours. --ViseMoD (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Embedded ProPhoto RGB color profile is not recommended for web use. Some popular web browsers ignore embedded color profiles, meaning users of those browsers see the wrong colors for this image. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dawn with the "alternatives"! This one does not add anything.--Jebulon (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination too much cry for me for a photo that's not even mine (and I do not like that much)... -- RTA 15:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 2[edit]

Info Cloned stamped towers, birds, and other things, cropped to thirds, giving more focus on Christ watching the right side, and raised the black, and white, to give more contrast. -- RTA 23:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- RTA 23:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A Rodrigo Argenton's support! It really has wow! Anyway, thanks for your support and your contribution. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually ArionEstar, I have a mixed feelings with this photo, Jesus there pass the idea of peace, and the clouds brings another mood, this should be calm, a slower shutter speed would be better. -- RTA 21:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Also great (although most of the clouds were cut out, this crop is still nice for my support). 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC) 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support small picture but great mood! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 06:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support As good as Alternative 1. --Code (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition, RTA style :) --Laitche (talk) 08:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice textures and forms. --Pine^✉ 02:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The same reason as for File:Yellow Jesus.jpg --ViseMoD (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ProPhoto RGB color profile not recommended for web use. Use sRGB instead. Some popular web browsers ignore embedded color profiles, meaning users of those browsers see the wrong colors for this image. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Slaunger: Can you fix? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ArionEstar: : I do not know. I have not tried it before, but maybe. Not tonight though. I will have a look tomorrow. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed -- Slaunger (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose does not look like an "alternative", and this different picture is not better to me. Maybe a third, or a fourth, or a fifth "alternative"?--Jebulon (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At this size, the quality should be better - especially sharpness is not good here and there are signs of overprocessing. — Julian H.^✈ 16:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overprocessing. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's obviously processed, so one has to decide if the effect is good. I don't care for it and it is now quite a small image for FP. Both versions where fixed objects have been cloned-out must have a "retouched" template describing what was altered. It's ok to clone out birds, but not permanent objects without making this clear. -- Colin (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination too much cry for me for a photo that's not even mine (and I do not like that much)... -- RTA 15:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rodrigo.Argenton: Really a pity. This one is to be FP without your withdraw. P.S.: I'm sure you have a photographic potential like the FP photographers (Diliff, Slaunger, Mile, etc...) 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @ArionEstar: thank you, however read the comments of the original proposition, and a tip for you: here we have some fotos do caralho, *-*, if this level appears here in Commons, then you should nominate, some are more artistic (yeah, some are pure art), and as you saw one this thread, will not pass, but it is better than the okay or bad photos... ;) -- RTA 19:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Rodrigo.Argenton: FPs are also small. See this one. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - @ArionEstar: are you talking about it? I did not oppose only because of the small size only, but for the "protection" posture... photographers do that, example (read the comment), but for a FPC is not okay. -- RTA 20:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Enrique Simonet - La autopsia - 1890.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2015 at 09:58:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info painted by Enrique Simonet - uploaded by Smkrsw - nominated by Villy Fink Isaksen -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 09:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info Great wow to me --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 09:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 09:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mile (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--LivioAndronico talk 17:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question There is no source for the author of the photograph. Is it acceptable ?--Jebulon (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For me oui...--LivioAndronico talk 17:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes for for too! --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good queston Jebulon. As far i see they dont have obligation to name autor of photo, but original author (creator) or the art made. So no credit to photographer in this case, i suppose. I whish this could be made clear. Acceptable, probably yes, moral, no. --Mile (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly .... the developer of the framework is reported ... in this case is sufficient for me--LivioAndronico talk 17:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, I just have to oppose to a submitted photograph without named author.--Jebulon (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that a worst reason for voting against I do not think you could find--LivioAndronico talk 21:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Btw there is no photographer name to this nomination, what is the difference? --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 07:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the photographer is Mister Google.--Jebulon (talk) 09:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Yes, but who is Mister Google. ;-) --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support In this case the authorship should go to the painter. Just about any competent photographer can and should produce this quality or reproduction. There is no "signature" to the photographer, just a plain old photographic reproduction of a work of art. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 10:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Smnt (talk) 04:25, 4 July 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
~~Conditional oppose~~ No color-space metadata and no embedded color profile: Windows and Mac browsers and apps treat colors randomly (even on a calibrated monitor). -- Slaunger (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Slaunger: Fixed. Yann (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, Yann! -- Slaunger (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, also from me. Yann --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Small bird perching on a branch.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2015 at 21:48:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Laitche -- Laitche (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitche (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like here... On a branch! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support focus not on eye - but still...! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 11:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral nice but that branch blurred in the foreground just do not like--LivioAndronico talk 17:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 01:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition. --Pugilist (talk) 11:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Laitche, noise reduction has gone much too far here, you've lost a lot of detail, look at the feathers! --Kadellar (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kadellar: Thanks for the comment. The source image is not so detailed unfortunately... Yes, I executed a bit NR and a bit sharp but I think differences are not so much. Here, pre NR and sharp feathers, Regards. --Laitche (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but have you got any noise reduction activated directly on camera? 1Dx + 300f4 w/2x should be much sharper imo (well, maybe it's the multiplier, which seems to be the old first edition, isn't it?). I've gone birding and I could get finer detail with a bit better lens but worse body, so I don't really know how similar is your case. These: 1, 2 are crops, they are fine but there were some sharper pictures as well. --Kadellar (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kadellar: I think the subject distance is much farther than your samples, I didn't downscale at all, crop only. Here, pre-crop version. And maybe caused by my skill... Of course I couldn't use tripod and lens-shake compensation is not capable in this case, I hope I can do more well next time :) --Laitche (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I processed from the raw so camera NR is not involved. --Laitche (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks! Yes, it seems my birds were much closer. The tripod also helps! --Kadellar (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kadellar: Partially I don't get your comment "the multiplier" means extender? What does "the old first edition" mean? --Laitche (talk) 10:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Laitche: Yes, extender, sorry. With first edition I mean that there is now the 2x Mark III (2x III), which is much better. --Kadellar (talk) 12:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kadellar: Thanks. I'm using EF 2.0X III, I think it's the latest model, Regards. --Laitche (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Egg fruit DS.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2015 at 15:59:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info created by Augustus Binu - uploaded by Augustus Binu - nominated by Mydreamsparrow -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 17:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Have this bad cut at the bottom (see notes), if fixed, it's a good photo. -- RTA 23:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow (colors are not remarkable) and the edges are a bit jagged, sorry. --Laitche (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't know why the colours should be remarkable here. The fruit looks ok. --Tremonist (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tremonist: I think colors are OK and natural, I mean no wow factor in this colors. e.g. this red is wow for me, and also this color is wow (remarkable to me) :) --Laitche (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Laitche: I agree with you! There is no "wow" in the colours. But it's sufficient to depict natural colours here, I think. :) Greetings, --Tremonist (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tremonist: Yes, that's your opinion, my opinion is if the creator fix the bottom cut as RTA mentioned, this image is good QI but not FP (since no wow for me). But probably I change my vote to neutral. I think there are lots of varieties in opinions, it's ok :) --Laitche (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Laitche: Oh yes, people can have different opinions, that's pluralism in all its ways. It's ok for me, too. :) --Tremonist (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support new version I've uploaded. I tidied up the cut-out on the bottom. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Taraxacum seed or Dandelions.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2015 at 16:20:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created by TripWire - uploaded by TripWire - nominated by TripWire -- TripWire (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TripWire (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment DoF small, overexposed areas.--XRay ^talk 07:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mostly flower with brown-ground background looks not beautiful. (This is not flower though...) + overexposed + oversharpened + noisy. --Laitche (talk) 09:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ No color-space metadata and no embedded color profile. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info Added a fresher version which contains the exif data. The full exif data is now visible on the image page. Thanks.--TripWire (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Slaunger: Fixed. Yann (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Verified! Thanks, Yann! -- Slaunger (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others. --Tremonist (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For such a common and photogenic seed head, I'd expect much higher standard for FP. The central part also appears blown of any details. -- Colin (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info From where I come from, this isnt common. The central part is as it is. The plant was left untouched.--TripWire (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:По гротам пещеры 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2015 at 17:13:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Kungur Ice Cave, Perm Krai, Russia / Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created by Владимир Чуприков - uploaded by Владимир Чуприков - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry but no wow (I cannot support this orange and blue artificial light for tourist), oversharpened and noisy. --Laitche (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 01:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love it. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The colours are ok for me, but Laitche is right that the image is oversharpened. Could you provide an alternative? --Tremonist (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It would be better if it wasn't so oversharpened. I like the lighting of the cave, many caves don't have proper and or artistic lights. This is a long exposure, you can see it as nightly light painting. --Kadellar (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Noisy but wow (the artificial light does not remove the wow IMHO). 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I saw comments about noise, but when i see EXIF it is obviously tripod shot. On ISO 200 is hard to get noise. Just ice has some noise kind of looking, but no noise around, so probably even that on ice isnt noise but natural shape. --Mile (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have a question. This orange and blue colors are natural phenomena? And the white ice on the right side is also illuminated by artificial white light so this white is not trustworthy as well, I want to see the real colors... --Laitche (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Caves have temperatures above zero (some 4-8°C), so forming of ice there is phenomena. I havent saw it so far. --Mile (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info Alternative version with much less noise/artefacts: ~~File:По гротам пещеры 1 reprocessed.jpg~~ current version overwritten (made of RAW data provided by the photographer via e-mail), not candidating yet, just wishing some feedback (maybe @Laitche: @Jacek Halicki: @Tremonist: @Kadellar: ), because of course some nice "HDR-ish" effects on the ice formations are gone now; should, however, the new version still be preferred, I would upload it above the old one in order to have it taking part on the international WLE round. Thanks --A.Savin 18:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@A.Savin: Looks very nice! Probably I can support that, Thanks :) --Laitche (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This new version is better, so OK to overload. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both are fine. Why is there a change in perspective? --Kadellar (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There must be several intentional distortions in the photographer's version, whereas all I did was some perspective corrections on the verticals, so therefore the differences and also a slight change in crop. Still waiting for an answer by Vladimir Chuprikov if he likes my version and likes to have his one overwritten. --A.Savin 12:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Pofka (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 09:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support new version The flaws are fixed, I can recognize the real colors with new version （＾＾） --Laitche (talk) 09:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support new version per Laitche. --Tremonist (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rome panorama from Altare della Patria.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2015 at 16:12:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info Rome panorama from Altare della Patria. All by --Mile (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This picture seems to be quite chaotic to me. I fail to see its main subject. It doesn't really look like a panorama shot because many buildings are covered by various objects. Just my thoughts. -- Pofka (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Maybe i should put "A view on Rome from Altare della Patria". Cat cityscape is OK. There is no main subject here, that various things are part of Rome. I think photo is fine, no disturbing element.--Mile (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Fits much more as a cityscape. -- Pofka (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it's a little bit dark for me, see this. -- RTA 21:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done +EV --Mile (talk) 06:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --LivioAndronico talk 11:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find it too busy.--Jebulon (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 20:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor arangement. --Karelj (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't understand the composition. Both statues are looking away and random buildings in between. -- Colin (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Mile (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dome of Church of the Gesù (Rome).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2015 at 11:59:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info All by LivioAndronico talk 11:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico talk 11:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~I wont support (see notes), but~~ anyway, it is an excellent photo. We need more informations about it in the file description page.--Jebulon (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done --LivioAndronico talk 13:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is this one shot photo or stitch ? I see left part much more unsharp compared to right wing, despite same distance, as it look like. --Mile (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only one Mile,thanks --LivioAndronico talk 13:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Pofka (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent corrections, in addition of a wonderful image.--Jebulon (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 05:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Σπάρτακος (talk) 10:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 20:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Info Demoted/Delisted to not featured per this consensus. --Cart (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gyumri haxtanaki aygi.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2015 at 12:48:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Էդմոնդ Խաչատրյան - uploaded by Էդմոնդ Խաչատրյան - nominated by ԱշոտՏՆՂ -- ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lilitik22 (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, heavy chromatic aberration, overexposed areas. --Cayambe (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Cayambe. Yann (talk) 10:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cayambe. And too dark in the upper part. --Tremonist (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality doesn't even reach QP level. Many smartphones makes better quality pictures. I'm surprised this shot was taken with a solid Canon camera. -- Pofka (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Laokoon by Adriaan Korteweg.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2015 at 12:45:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Adriaan Korteweg - uploaded by Dan Mihai Pitea - nominated by mirrys -- Mirrys (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mirrys (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 17:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support not "easy", but very good.--Jebulon (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thanks for the nomination, I'll support it as it's my first one for FP. :-) --Mihai (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lena Delta B.Lyakhovsky Island 2010-09-28 Boris.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2015 at 09:11:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by BorisSolovyev - edited and uploaded by A.Savin - nominated by A.Savin --A.Savin 09:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 09:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice image and interesting mood in this inhospitable area. Quality is widely decent for an aerial image in harsh climatic condition. -- Christian Ferrer 19:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support but maybe crop without clouds. Or not... Whatever! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 18:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 06:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 07:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pointe du Hoc May 2015.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2015 at 12:27:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Pointe du Hoc, one of the major battle sites of the D-Day, june 6, 1944, as it is nowadays.-- Jebulon (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bush or whatever in the foreground at the bottom is disturbing. Then the light situation is not that good - maybe a photo of this object taken on a sunny day could become FP. This one looks a little bit flat and dark. Sorry, but I can't support this nomination. --Code (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a historical place, it needs no other wow I suppose. But it's a little dark, I agree. Jebulon, could you provide an alternative? --Tremonist (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for review, interest and comment. No, I'll not provide any alternative, sorry. I'm by religion against the (so-called) alternatives, because here it is FP, not a photo workshop (shortly said). The picture has to be good as it is when nominated here, by respect for the reviewers (only my poor opinion). Yes, it is a little dark, but first I don't understand why "a photo of this object taken on a sunny day could become FP", FP should not be only for oversaturated pictures, with harsh (filtered) blue skies. Second, the weather was so when the US Rangers climbed the cliff, june 6th 1944.--Jebulon (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pont de Chancia02 2015-05-10.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2015 at 09:43:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info created, uploaded and nominated by KlausFoehl -- KlausFoehl (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator -- KlausFoehl (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 180° panos look so strange. Clouds are forming bands around the mountain. Definately unnatrual looking. I would try just one half. --Mile (talk) 09:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's an exciting projection this way or the other. And let the clouds form bands if they like, this is surely due to the kind of projection and does not really disturb me. :) --Tremonist (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Are there CAs along the shadow of the right balustrade? The same problem also in the alternative. --Llez (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info Yes there are. For panoramic images I usually use only image information from near the centre, but each balustrade comes from one photo (to avoid parallax errors) and hence the stronger CA from the image corner shows. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 13:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support unusual and interesting angles. Technical quality is decent. --Pine^✉ 02:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 17:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Totally per Pine. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Color space tagged as sRGB, without an embedded color profile: Windows and Mac browsers and apps treat the colors randomly (even with a properly calibrated monitor). -- Slaunger (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info Probably hugin cannot add a colour profile where files from camera (see File:Chancia02 2015-05-10.jpg) come without. I thought that for cameras gamma=2.2 has been the de facto standard for quite a while. The Canon G12 does gamma=2.2 as I have checked, how to add this best to the file? -- KlausFoehl (talk) 08:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info Generic sRGB_IEC61966-2-1_black_scaled.icc colour profile now added. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Verified! Metadata color space data looks good now. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Mile.--Jebulon (talk) 09:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Comment The alternative doesn't provide this great panoramic view what is regrettable. --Tremonist (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I like the wide angle variant much more. -- Pofka (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No color-space metadata and no embedded color profile. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Pont de Chancia02 2015-05-10.jpg

File:櫻川札.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2015 at 12:55:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by User:Outlookxp - uploaded by Outlookxp - nominated by Mirrys -- Mirrys (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mirrys (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info This is Japanese style playing cards - Tenshō karuta (File:小松札.png, File:黒札.png) 16th century - 17th century. --Laitche (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Laitche. And do you like the way they are depicted here? You are familiar with the subject. --Tremonist (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tremonist: No, I am not familiar with this subject, before this nomination I didn't know what is this but I recognized some Japanese in this image so I checked this with ja Wikipedia... --Laitche (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Laitche: Thank you. Could have been you had to do with such cards before. Might have helped understanding the importance of this picture. :) --Tremonist (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good preservation ~~in 400 years ago~~ (I guess this is reproduction), rarity and nice colours. --Laitche (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Laitche. --Tremonist (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ No color-space metadata and no embedded color profile. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Slaunger: Fixed. Yann (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Verified, thanks, Yann. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the quality of the reproduction doesn't really convince me here. Aliasing is visible, red/black lines are blurry. Those are just hints that make me suspect that the quality of the reproduction is limiting the amount of information we get about the original, which I don't find FP-worthy. — Julian H.^✈ 16:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This would be better as PNG. Yann (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fromental Halévy, L'Éclair score cover - Restoration.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2015 at 15:22:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Paul Gavarni (uncertain) - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 17:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Love it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Conditional oppose~~ No color-space metadata and no embedded color profile in current version. Browsers and other applications may show colors differently (even on a calibrated monitor). -- Slaunger (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Slaunger: Fixed. Yann (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Verified that! Thanks, Yann! -- Slaunger (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Safety Car side 2015 Malaysia.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2015 at 19:47:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created by Morio - uploaded by Morio - nominated by Σπάρτακος -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the category should be "Objects" (Vehicles). Regards, Yann (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not so special. --Tremonist (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~{{FPD}}~~ --Laitche (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The other nomination has expired by rules of the 5th day at 15:39:24, 2nd Jul 2015 (UTC). --Laitche (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support cool car. Photo is good but could be better. --Pine^✉ 01:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's better for the hard conditions. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The classic safety and not the virtual --LivioAndronico talk 06:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: Resolution, sharpness and composition are all good but not excellent. — Julian H.^✈ 07:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Вечерний Дус-Холь.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2015 at 17:28:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created & uploaded by Александр Лещёнок - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting landscape. --Pugilist (talk) 11:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light and colors! --Laitche (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome. --Johann Jaritz Sämtlich(talk)
Support -- Pofka (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me the colors are oversaturated, and the contrast too heavy. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's stunning. That being said, King might have a point, a tiny bit less saturation might be a good idea. Hard to judge though without having been there. — Julian H.^✈ 16:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, King might be right but no one confirm that except the creator. --Laitche (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 20:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks good to me. Maybe slightly oversaturated but I think the contrast is about right. Diliff (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 06:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image: 2015-05-13 Basteibrücke-.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2015 at 15:03:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info created by Je-str - uploaded by Je-str - nominated by Je-str -- Je-str (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Je-str (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very poor sharpness, blown sky. --Kadellar (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kadellar, far from this one. --Laitche (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
conditional oppose No color-space metadata and no embedded color profile. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposes. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. -- Pofka (talk) 08:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, sorry. --Tremonist (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: as per above comments. Yann (talk) 11:44, 10 July 2015 (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:Papio papio and juvenile Port Lympne Wild Animal Park.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2015 at 07:51:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family : Cercopithecidae_(Old_World_monkeys)
Info created by William Warby - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 07:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 07:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you fix the exif? --Laitche (talk) 10:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What needs fixing? Everything appears to be there. —Bruce1ee^talk 12:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - ??? Camera manufacturer is Animal Park? Camera model is AGING? Author is 03 08:42:21? --Laitche (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, I didn't look at the top of the table! I didn't take the picture, I'd have to try and contact the photographer. —Bruce1ee^talk 12:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I fixed the exif and uploaded new version. I did not any edit at all, the only changing is software, Lightroom → Photoshop, if the creator don't like Photoshop, re-upload please :) --Laitche (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you very much! Is it possible that Lightroom was corrupting the EXIF? I see that some his other pictures (eg. File:Cygnus olor cygnet Hampton Court.jpg) are also showing corrupted EXIFs. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        This problem is only with Lightroom 6.1 I think Commons system is not adapted Lightroom 6.1's exif yet, guess 6.0 is ok. Regards. --Laitche (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I can confirm what Laitche says. The uploads can be fixed using exiftools. An example script conserving color space metadata is here. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 10:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Σπάρτακος (talk) 10:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice moment :) --Laitche (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 07:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support They are lovely! --Tremonist (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Brateevsky {talk} 20:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals#Family : Cercopithecidae (Old World monkeys)

File:Xylocopa virginica male face.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2015 at 11:35:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera
Info created by USGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab - uploaded and nominated by -- The Photographer (talk) 11:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 11:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Such portraits are always very impressive. :) --Tremonist (talk) 12:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would rate it as scary --The Photographer (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support--LivioAndronico talk 15:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We have some its kind of, in much higher standard. I put notations, some strange stuff-mistakes. I cant get rid of feeling this bug was killed to make a photo, can anyone correct me ? --Mile (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the technique of the author, this was taken in a sleeping animal, what you call mistake is really a insect hair gold color in the shadown. --The Photographer (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The same author could create a better result, as this. I fixed the main correctable issues, wrong license, black areas, and centralized. But the lack of the quality, in general, is not appealing to me. -- RTA 07:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not compare animals and different nominations. I revert your version, I am sorry, its adding more problems that fixing something (like tilt), I invite you to create a alternative nomination, upload it like another version. Thanks for your help --The Photographer (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For THE Photographer you should study away more about photography. You reverted a background cleaning that you was not capable to do. I dedicate my time to improve a image, and you through the edition away just to impose yourself; this behaviour do not below to this Movement.

Why would I create another bad quality image? Just to not hurt your ego? No one can edit a photo that you only uploaded (with several errors)? Cleaning background is not a alternative, is improvement of the image...

And I'm not comparing "animals" I'm comparing technique... the author already showed domain of a better technique, if you did not get that, is better be quite, for you not embarrass yourself. -- RTA 20:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please Rodrigo, do not take this to a personal matter. I appreciate your comments --The Photographer (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As some already said, there already are better examples of this. -- Pofka (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have many buildings, however, each has its peculiarities. In this case this is not the same animal. --The Photographer (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know him. His face is very reflective in nature and difficult to capture as it is contrasting to his wings and body colour. Well done. (I saw an argument about "killing". Hmm, Carl Linnaeus and Frederic Charles Fraser may killed a lot of insects as part of their study. Otherwise we have no IDs; everything is just a bug or plant. I don't encourage every hobbyist like me start killing them; but see nothing wrong if a serous researcher or a serous organisation like USGS killed a few for the sake of research and studies.) J e e 02:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow! _{but off center antennae are not even.} --Laitche (talk) 13:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Conditional oppose~~ No color-space metadata and no embedded color profile in current version. The original upload from flickr had an AdoberRGB color profile (which is not recommended for web use, sRGB is better). But in the subsequent edit by THE () Rodrigo.Argenton uploaded here, the color space metadata were stripped off. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Awareness_of_color_space_data_in_files for a generic discussion on color space. J e e 15:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is better to revert boldly than "kill a nom" with an oppose. :) J e e 01:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that my oppose was conditional (and I have now striked it as I have been able to resolve the color space issue myself now). I could not revert as then I would also revert the actual edits on the file. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baby talk about colour-profile again... I brought back the metadata, as you can see on the File page (how about the next time you do that, it takes the same time as to come here to cry for it). I should let it in that away, because it's a bad photo, if several mistakes, but your only reason to you say no is the colour-profile... for God's sake.

I'll assume "revert" as "fix", to not be more disappointed... -- RTA 07:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RTA: It was not possible for me to restore profile data which had been lost when you also edited the file. The new version you now uploaded had the AdobeRGB color space, which is not suitable for web use, but at least that version I could convert to sRGB. I have not even started reviewing the photo yet, it had no purpose when the file had no proper color space metadata. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This a community that storage and uses internet as a tool, but this is not restricted to internet.

This suitable for web is dumb, if ProPhoto stores more information, this should be the choice... And every time and time this stupid discussion appears, I will not waste more time on this, you prefer decrease the file quality in order to be "suitable for web browsers", forgetting uses beyond Wikipedia... -- RTA 04:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RTA, please don't argue here about AdobeRGB or ProPhoto being suitable. This is an internet-based digital media archive and the standard on the internet is sRGB whether we like it or not. The world is digital now and 99.9999% of our image use will be online. I very much doubt this rather unsaturated image has any significant pixels that fall outside of sRGB colour, so why should 99.99% of our viewers see the wrong colour because you haven't done your research on the topic. AdobeRGB is for sending TIFFs to a print shop; it is the Betamax of colorspaces. -- Colin (talk) 12:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I will not waste more time on this" RTA 04:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As in "I refuse to learn something new today"

. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slaunger this is very offensive standard to me, and this is not the place for a colour profile discussion. Both, Colin and you, are the ones very straight on this, not open to a real discussion, imposing a view, get in to the ridiculous of spamming opposing votes, jeopardising candidatures to force people to curve to your view. So this is not "I refuse to learn" (a very deep value on me), that is "I will not enter on this stupid conversation, with people not prepared to listening". -- RTA 15:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RTA, I'm missing the bit where you carefully argued your view and supplied sources for your non-standard opinions on colorspace. All I saw was "Baby talk about colour-profile again". If you want to have a grown-up discussion I'm all ears. But the fact that you uploaded an image without any colourspace tag or profile and then uploaded in AdobeRGB makes me suspect you don't know what you doing or saying and would rather throw insults than admit you made a mistake. There are plenty resources on the internet. This is not a personal view but simply the standard for the internet. -- Colin (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep insult me, this will make your point... -- RTA 17:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Given the difficult subject matter, a rather impressive photo. I do notice a fair amount of chroma noise at full resolution, however, that might be cleanable by someone with the technical skill. Also, the yellow area in the very center seems to be edging on overexposed. Revent (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Imelda May en Madgarden Festival 2015 - 13.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2015 at 19:29:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info Imelda May at Madgarden Fest 2015, Madrid, Spain. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Kadellar (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kadellar (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Nice contrast of colours. Many areas a little unsharp though. --Tremonist (talk) 13:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nailed. --Johann Jaritz Sämtlich(talk)
Support -- Pofka (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment shame about the drummer -- Colin (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but per Colin, the drummer is distracting. --Laitche (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Liivakivipaljand Saesaare paisjärv 2015.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2015 at 02:17:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Rutake - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment EXIF seems broken and the picture lacks a little bit sharpness and contrast IMO. The composition is good. Can you improve it? --Code (talk) 05:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tilted counter-clockwise a tiny bit (but quite noticeable due to the reflection). — Julian H.^✈ 07:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you provide an alternative maybe? --Tremonist (talk) 12:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Slightly tilted ccw, about 0.213° ... --Laitche (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Another "calm lake with trees reflected". This one is nothing special at all. -- Colin (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin.--Jebulon (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Kruusamägi (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pointe du Hoc barbelés.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2015 at 15:54:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would you like this kind of symbolic minimalism ? Authentic barbed wires at Pointe du Hoc, D.-Day, Calvados, Normandy, France -- Jebulon (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I usually like your pictures, but I don't see what could be featured here. That could be anywhere in the world. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I don't think the thin dark wire makes the picture. Otherwise, it's really flat. I guess there is some symbolism there, but I don't find it strong enough visually. — Julian H.^✈ 07:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I know where about this is, but it doesn't look characteristic enough, sorry. --Tremonist (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good idea, poor execution. I would have made 1/3 foreground, 1/3 ocean with wire, 1/3 sky, using rule of thirds. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's a first time for everything - I agree with Tomas. It would have been a better photo with the rule of thirds I think. Possibly could have even modified it to the rule of quarters: Grass, barbed wire, ocean, sky... all in equal proportion! Diliff (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thank you all for interesting reviews, nothing to do than withdraw, and try another attempt with something else !--Jebulon (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panoramic view of Byrkjelo from Rv60 20150603 1.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2015 at 07:28:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info c/u/n by me, -- DXR (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know that this is not the typical landscape FP with perfect blue skies, but I think that the clouds are quite interesting here and the quality is also reasonable, so I would like to hear your opinions. Keep in mind that this part of Norway is notorious for its bad weather, so EV should at least be no problem... -- DXR (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice, but a little misty and thus greyish. What about better weather? Ok, it's rare in this part of the world, but the photo is quite dark overall. Perhaps the atmosphere and the interesting shapes of the clouds would look more impressive in b&w? --Tremonist (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Strongly disagree with Tremonist ! Please dear reviewers, don't support only empty blue skies and "postcards" or "chocolate box" landscapes ! Bad weather is normal, and can generate, in color too, Featured Pictures !--Jebulon (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Jebulon, you haven't voted support either yet, have you? And I don't like blue skies only, it was just about this picture being a little dark. With this atmosphere I would prefer a b&w version. --Tremonist (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 17:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Not enough wow, I guess. Thanks for your comments. --DXR (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Garça Branca.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2015 at 16:33:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created and uploaded by Luiz Antonio Gabriel - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak support a crop would be better--LivioAndronico talk 16:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The new special rule for you. "Not more than ten times in last 30 days withdraws by the same user are allowed." ;) --Laitche (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

??? where is this rule? --LivioAndronico talk 19:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Livioandronico2013: This was a joke. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arion is right... --Laitche (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--LivioAndronico talk 19:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Livioandronico2013: Can you fix? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "a bit" overeexposed. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I cannot see it. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak support --Tremonist (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a bit overeeeexposed. --Laitche (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Abstain --LivioAndronico talk 21:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Colours above nicer. --Tremonist (talk) 12:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fuente Wittelsbacher, Plaza Lenbach, Múnich, Alemania, 2015-07-04, DD 07-09 HDR.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2015 at 19:26:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info The Wittelsbacher foutain is a monumental fountain at the north border of Munich downtown (Germany). The fountain was built between 1893 and 1895 following drawings of the sculptor Adolf von Hildebrand. The subject of the 25-long-basin is the forces of the water element with the allegory of the destruction on the left hand and of the blessing force on the right. All by me, Poc o² 19:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 19:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good, maybe a little tight. According to the title it's an HDR image that we have here, though EXIF metadata doesn't corroborate that...(?) Btw, impressive new equipment, Diego! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martin! It looks like when using HDR in LR6 the EXIF data of one of the result is taken over from one of the frames, will look into that. Regarding the equipment, yes, it's a different and bigger animal that I am trying to domesticate :) Poc o² 21:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WB is off. Seems like you were chasing lights but you spoiled the sky, despite you didnt catch correct temperature or light (bottom part still too much yellow and sky too fluorescent). What should be benefit of HDR here, its more way around - sky should be darker with different looking. Composition doesnt work for me neither, if back would be darker would be better. --Mile (talk) 06:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by chasing lights. I didn't touch the WB, I rarely have to do that. The colors look pretty loyal to reality to me, but I can reduce saturation a bit. Benefit if HDR is to capture the high dynamic range of the scene. Maybe it doesn't stand out to you but with one frame I'd either have a lot of overexposed areas or a lot of underexposed areas, and that is IMHO an issue that I adressed with HDR. Composition is a matter of taste. To me the fountain is for itself a highlight (to me without doubt the nicest in Munich), the smooth water and night lighting increases the wow and the blue sky rounds it. Poc o² 15:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 08:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on the new camera （＾＾）_∠※:♪:*｡・♫.ﾟ★.♪*｡☆・ﾟ･♬.:.* --Laitche (talk) 08:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The two moving girls are a pity. There is too much noise in the trees at left IMO. I'm not sure HDR is useful here. But... I like this appealing picture.--Jebulon (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very good, but the criticism has a base. --Tremonist (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mile, Jebulon, Tremonist: new version with reduced saturation of the sky and reduced noise in the trees on the left Poc o² 19:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I saw it but its not that. I think HDR shouldnt be used in such case. Eyes should stick on fountain imidiately, not on sky and trees or somewhere in the middle. In would aim camera lower for that reason, less sky, more concrete bellow fountain. --Mile (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's all very beautifull -- with the sole exception of the two blurred persons on the right. It indicates motion, of course, but motion that is hardly needed here. Unfortunately, I don't see any option for a good crop here in order to fix this problem. --Tremonist (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great photo, but distracting people. — Julian H.^✈ 07:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Yes I agree with Julian, the people are distracting and enough to make it hard to support. Again, congrats on the new camera and lens though. Seems to be pretty sharp. I'm not yet convinced to buy the 5Ds though. I'm not really impressed with the sensor performance figures and I'm wishing for better dynamic range and ISO performance than megapixels (stitching is enough to provide me with megapixels when I need it). Diliff (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Btw, believe me guys, I wouldn't change this camera for two 5D Mark IIs... Poco² 19:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't suggest you would.. But I'd rather a Nikon D810 or Sony A7Rii, personally. If I wasn't already so heavily invested in Canon lenses that is! The dynamic range advantage is more important than megapixels IMO. Diliff (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amalfi BW 2013-05-15 10-09-21 1 DxO.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2015 at 07:56:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Berthold Werner
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 07:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's nice, but morning light isn't good here, all facade is in shadow. Evening light would have been better for this building imo, because it's facing west. --Kadellar (talk) 09:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Kadellar. A little too unsharp in parts, too, it appears. --Tremonist (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the mood here, wish fountain wasnt choped. But you have some echo lines at the castle above, some blue-kind edge. You could clone that bird in the air, probably affected with denoising. I wouldnt mind to support afterwards. --Mile (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I really doubt if the quality really meets FP standards, but the capture was so brilliant that I was unable to oppose. -- Pofka (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Color space tagged as sRGB, without an embedded color profile: Windows and Mac browsers and apps treat the colors randomly. Please adjust your workflow such that you embed the colour profile data. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Slaunger: Fixed. Yann (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed it is. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor lighting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per ~~Colin~~King. Also looks washed out in some areas, due to noise reduction or just lack of detail contrast. — Julian H.^✈ 07:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Julian：You mean "Per King"? --Laitche (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, yes. Sorry. Fixed. — Julian H.^✈ 14:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 13:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gevlekte orchis (Dactylorhiza maculata). Locatie. Nationaal Park Lauwersmeer 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2015 at 16:01:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family: orchideeën (Orchidaceae)
Info Spotted Orchid (Dactylorhiza maculata). Location. Lauwersmeer National Park in the Netherlands. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 06:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Livio & Arion, You two are set? :) --Laitche (talk) 06:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @ArionEstar: My gift is my line and this one's for you ♪♫♩♬. I hope you don't mind... that I put down in words. --Laitche (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simple! --Laitche (talk) 09:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 10:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Σπάρτακος (talk) 10:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FPCBot's bug? currently 9 supports... (Bot is not skipping <source>) --Laitche (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Right. I removed that and the bot template. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 12:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 13:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Keble College Dining Hall 2, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2015 at 09:41:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 09:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 09:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice depth, colors and mood :) --Laitche (talk) 09:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect. --Code (talk) 10:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow, clean, perfect quality. --The Photographer (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support In memoriam Professor Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore--Jebulon (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow --Cayambe (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jebulon ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 06:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 06:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 07:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 13:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Spechtensee gegen Westen 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2015 at 12:39:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Reflections in lake Spechtensee near Wörschachwald, Styria. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful scenery, nice reflections. --Tremonist (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I venture to suggest this crop. --Laitche (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- ↑ Support -- RTA 13:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak support The details are a bit fuzzy, a central cut would be better but the place and the composition are fascinating --LivioAndronico talk 17:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 06:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, even shows a little opposition surge I think. — Julian H.^✈ 07:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 12:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 13:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Кучерлинское озеро, Горный Алтай.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2015 at 08:31:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created - uploaded by Александр Лещёнок - nominated by Sergei Kazantsev -- KSK (talk) 08:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KSK (talk) 08:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a little dark I think, but all the reflections are gorgeous. --Tremonist (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good composition but terrible posterization on the drift wood. --Laitche (talk) 09:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice picture. The mountains are very dark and the dead tree in the front may be the main motif ... or the mountains with the reflections? --XRay ^talk 14:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. 2 days ago I wanted to nominate this photo, but I forgot. :( Thanks to KSK and Александр Лещёнок of course. Good place and great composition. --Brateevsky {talk} 20:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Laitche. — Julian H.^✈ 07:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- :( And now I noticed. I'll crop a file. --Brateevsky {talk} 17:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 1[edit]

Info Cropped to remove terrible posterization. --Brateevsky {talk} 17:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 2[edit]

Info When cropped, with clone might be better. --Laitche (talk) 03:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as editor. --Laitche (talk) 03:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yellow Jesus - Edited and croped.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2015 at 15:49:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created by dabldy - edited and uploaded by RTA - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support again --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and Wow, but very small resolution.--XRay ^talk 17:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very small and heavily posterised. When the original sRGB image was cropped and retouched by RTA, he incorrectly saved it as ProPhoto RGB JPG. If you compare the smooth tonal changes in the clouds of the original with the grainy posterised version here it is like someone saved the JPG at very low quality. I see Slaunger has converted it subsequently to sRGB but this doesn't restore the damage done (it just makes it more likely that some viewers will see the correct colours). It should never have been saved as ProPhoto RGB, which was never designed to be a display colourspace -- it is a working colourspace for doing photo retouching in 16-bit. -- Colin (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per before. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. I think, FPC should not be for button-size images of such motifs. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 05:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. — Julian H.^✈ 07:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think like here, the quality isn't the best (noise) but it looks a painting. Nice and Wow. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 08:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the idea is good, but not the quality. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per opposers.--Jebulon (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monte Roraima, Roraima.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2015 at 21:32:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Caio Vilela - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 08:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:"Jarbaso".jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2015 at 19:41:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Qammer Wazir - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really lovely scene, but low sharpness (especially at the bottom). --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great picture! Maxam1392 (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Sorry, not enough edits for votings. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 04:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King--Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 08:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lewis Hine Power house mechanic working on steam pump.jpg (delist)[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2015 at 13:36:00

Info To be replaced by the picture at right: wider crop, bigger size, much less compression (Original nomination)
Delist and replace It is not exactly the same picture, but I think that the new proposal is a more natural pose, less staged. -- Yann (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The one of the left has better contrast. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per King of Hearts. -- KTC (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noticed by the nominator himself, it is not the same picture, and per King.--Jebulon (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. --Jebulon (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@King of Hearts, KTC, Jebulon, and Jebulon: I added more contrast. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the original is a better image in terms of composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for rework, but I agree with KoH (left arm, face...)--Jebulon (talk) 09:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only contrast, current FP is smaller but has more details. --Laitche (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination OK. Yann (talk) 09:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:ECV 5722.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2015 at 17:36:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created and uploaded by Enaldo Valadares - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great sky. -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos ssp.).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2015 at 03:30:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by Gregory "Slobirdr" Smith - uploaded and nominated by -- The Photographer (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose hazed picture, lack of punch, contrast and separation from the busy background; not a FP. -- RTA 13:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You talk like this is a studio, you forget that this is a picture of a deadly animal in natural environment. --The Photographer (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You talk like this is not FPC page... pictures here should be beyond good, planned, carefully edited, not random pictures.

This image not even was edited properly, see the difference...

For THE Photographer you should learn something before be rude... -- RTA 20:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please Rodrigo, do not take this to a personal matter. I appreciate your comments --The Photographer (talk) 21:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ The RTA's version is really better. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ArionEstar: Your vote is based on a photo that has not been uploaded to commons. Additionally, the photo created by RTA is not superior, he is creating a before and after efect with a version that is not currently being evaluated here. --The Photographer (talk) 02:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy talk... bye... -- RTA 08:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Better now. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 13:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good photo (thanks for bear!). But it's will be better if more part of animal were in the photo (sorry for my English, I think it's understandable =) ). --Brateevsky {talk} 20:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info I removed green CA and uploaded new version. If there is a problem, revert please. --Laitche (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, let me know where were the CA, thanks --The Photographer (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Photographer: Please see note. --Laitche (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, :) --The Photographer (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Menyanthes trifoliata Spechtensee 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2015 at 16:54:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info Menyanthes trifoliata. All by me -- Uoaei1 (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 07:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Mostly flower with brown-ground background looks not beautiful, imho. --Laitche (talk) 09:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--LivioAndronico talk 12:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice QI, but doesn't really stand out imo. Also a little dark. — Julian H.^✈ 06:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Julian. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose With Julian - too dark. The blossoms look more grey than white. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per opposers. And not that sharp.--Jebulon (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:141227 Berliner Dom.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2015 at 21:29:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings
Info The west front of the Berlin Cathedral in the early morning. Behind it you can see the TV tower ("Fernsehturm"). All by me. -- Code (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Code (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ugly building, great picture! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good and nice.....especially the antenna behind makes the contrast between ancient and modern--LivioAndronico talk 11:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient? Not really... ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1747 for me is ancient Martin --LivioAndronico talk 14:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LivioAndronico. Delete 1747, insert 1905! They honestly didn't refrain from tearing down a church built by Schinkel (!) just to replace it with this whilhelmine monstrosity...! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Martin： Livio is coming from ~~27th~~ 37th century :) --Laitche (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tremonist (talk) 11:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Lightroom 6 and Mediawiki metadata viewer discussion

Question Why metadata is missing? former version has them. --Laitche (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several reasons. I tried to avoid the Mediawiki-LR6-metadata-bug (what didn't work that way, I have to assume). Then I'm often doing HDRs and if you tell LR6 to include the metadata it simply uses the metadata of one of the LDR shots for the HDR version, which is quite confusing. In the end I don't think that the camera settings are that important. If someone wants to know them - feel free to ask. It's not a secret. --Code (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I don't think that's a secret :) --Laitche (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: I am using Metadata Wrangler in combination with Lightroom. With this little addon you can make very fine adjustments which metadata are included into the exported image. --Tuxyso (talk) 05:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also recently started using the metadata wrangler. It has another positive side effect: It encodes the EXIF in a manner which the mediawiki metadata viewer understands how to decode, thus mitigating the LR 6.1 EXIF export issue. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the LR 6.1 EXIF bug anyway? I've only just upgraded from 6 to 6.1 and haven't uploaded anything new yet... what should I be aware of? Diliff (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diliff, see Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2015/04#Error_in_metadata_viewer?, though the exiftool work-around on that page is not advised as it removes some essential information such as colour profiles. I think Slaunger has an updated version somewhere. I don't think it's a flaw with LR 6.1, just an incompatibility due to MediaWiki making some assumptions. If you use Metadata Wrangler it goes away, plus you get to choose what profile information is embedded. I don't know if there are also issues with Photoshop exports too. -- Colin (talk) 06:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't really understand the problem. The Link you provided dates back to April before LR6.1 was released so if it does in some way relate to both LR6.0 and LR6.1, I should have had the same problem in the past too, but I haven't noticed anything wrong. Also, since the examples that Slaunger provides have now been fixed, I'm still no closer to really understanding what has gone wrong with the EXIF for him. He says the metadata fields are 'wrong' but in what way? Corrupted? Missing? It's hard to understand the problem if I can't see an example of it still happening... In any case, I haven't noticed any problems with any of the images I've uploaded. Diliff (talk) 08:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example (until someone fixes it): The problem is that the fields are mixed up, i.e. the value for one field was attributed to the title of a different one. — Julian H.^✈ 08:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh thanks Julian. Now I see it. And now I can see that it's also affected my images too, although I hadn't actually realised. In my image, The 'author' and 'copyright holder' should have the same information as each other, but somehow it's done the same thing as as in the example you've provided. So do we have any concrete information about whether it only affects LR6.1 or LR6.x? Slaunger's post on the Village Pump received the reply that it is "triggered in files where the values for the exif tags come before the list of tags contained in the file". I assume therefore that Lightroom is responsible for mixing the tags up, and that the EXIF wrangler puts them back in the right order regardless of whether you strip any EXIF data out of it? Diliff (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diliff It was a mistake that I wrote LR 6.1. The first time I experienced this problem was in late April 2015, which correlates well with the release of Lightroom 6.0. I know it is an issue when using both version 6.0 and 6.1. It is not an actual Lightroom bug, but in these versions Lightroom organises by default the exif data in a (valid) manner, which is however not taken into account by the Mediawiki metadate viewer. Since it does not appear that a fix for the Mediawiki bug is close to being deployed, the best mitigation is to rncode the Exif data in a manner, which the Mediawiki metadata viewer is capable of decoding. For th time being I am aware of two possible mitigations. One is to use an exiftools script, which re-encodes Exif in the problematic jpg file, such that it can correctly decoded by the mediawiki metadata viewer. I recently used such a script to correct about 50 uploads I had made since late April 2015. The other solution is to install the metadata wrangler plugin by Jeffrey Friedl for Lightroom (donateware), which uses (I think) exiftools under the hood. This also has the advantage of giving you much more detailed control over your exif data, like suppress the Lightroom Development settings, or suppress personal information or serial numbers of lens and camera. Since this issue is popping up recurrently, I think I will write down a few instructions. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diliff: I tried to summarize the situation and describe two mitigation methods here: User:Slaunger/Mitigating Mediawiki Metadata Viewer Bug. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --XRay ^talk 17:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC) (BTW: There is a workaround for the EXIF data using the tool exiftool. Please ask if you need the parameters.)[reply]
Support. Very nicely captured. Although why such a tight crop at the bottom? Did you remove some distracting elements from the foreground? Otherwise it feels a little unbalanced but not a big problem. Diliff (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Diliff. No, I did not remove anything. The crop comes from the perspective correction. I will try to give a little more space at the bottom when I'm back at my computer tomorrow. I'm saving up for the Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II to avoid these problems in the future but I think this will still take some time. --Code (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand why perspective correction would have resulted in a tight crop at the bottom though. Perspective correction usually has no significant effect on the crop at the top and bottom. It usually only affects the sides because they need to be distorted outwards to straighten the inward leaning verticals. I personally think stitching is a much better option than a tilt-shift lens, but if you think it's a better option for you, great and I look forward to seeing what you do it with. :-) Diliff (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. If you want to preserve the aspect ratio then perspective correction affects also the bottom, or am I wrong? But as I said - I will give it a try tomorrow. Concerning the TS-lens: Shifting is not the only thing you can do with it ;-) I think it's a very interesting photographic toy in many respects. We will see. --Code (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can't correct the perspective without affecting the aspect ratio. Correcting the verticals increases the height of the image because it increases the distortion. If you have to perserve the aspect ratio then yes I guess you have to crop something, but that's not a requirement of perspective correction, that's a choice. As for the TS lens, yes I suppose there is also the ability to shift the plane of focus which stitching cannot do, but I don't think the advantage of this is worth the cost of the lens, but that's just my opinion. :-) Also, I just noticed that there's a star shaped white patch just above the doorway. It doesn't look like it's part of the scene. Do you know what it is? Diliff (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the star is part of the christmas decoration (if we mean the same thing). The picture was taken at december, 27th. --Code (talk) 05:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I'm still confused by two things about it. I see a darker shadow on either side of the star, which means that it is being lit up by the two flood lights. But it is completely white without any texture, and yet everything else around it like the white signs below it are much darker, but they should be lit up similarly to the star, I would expect. The star seems to be 'cut out' and replaced with a white shape. It seems strange. Maybe I'm making a big deal out of nothing though. Diliff (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the star is illuminated from the inside. Regarding the crop, isn't it always a balance between losing more on the side or losing more on the bottom? — Julian H.^✈ 10:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's illuminated from the inside though (although I could be wrong), because it doesn't have any lens stars or light bleeding like every other source of light in the scene does - it's razor sharp. When you say "isn't it always a balance between losing more on the side or losing more on the bottom?", I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean specifically during perspective correction? No, (proper) perspective correction follows a mathematically precise formula. However, to do it properly, the software would need to know the focal length/angle of view to know how to apply the distortion (because a 17mm focal length image needs different perspective correction to a 50mm image). If you do perspective correction manually, you can approximate these calculations but it's largely guesswork. This is an example of mine to prove/explain what I mean. Here is a hand-held panorama before and after perspective correction. I've left it uncropped so you can see how the boundaries of the image are shifted. And now here is the cropped before and after photo so you can see where the crop has removed part of the image. You can see that it is only the left and right sides, not the top and bottom that have been affected by the perspective correction. It isn't a choice between cropping the sides or the bottom. There isn't an 'alternative' way to correct the perspective. Diliff (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The star was indeed illuminated from the inside. I'm very sure about that. --Code (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I believe you then. It just looks strange to me. :-) Diliff (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is that the result of the mathematical operation of correcting the perspective is (roughly) a trapezoid, and cropping the trapezoid to a rectangle necessarily means cutting something off. Whether that's the bottom or the side is up to the author. — Julian H.^✈ 13:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well ok, yes technically that's true but in practice, because of the shape of the trapezoid, you have to crop 3 or 4 pixels from the top or bottom for every pixel you save on the sides so it's rarely practical. It's much better to leave enough space around the sides so that you don't have to compromise anything during perspective correction. In this case, I can't see why the crop at the bottom should be so tight, there's plenty of space on the sides. Diliff (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info @Diliff: New version with different crop uploaded. What do you think about it? --Code (talk) 06:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, it has 'room to breathe' at the bottom now. Diliff (talk) 09:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support TV tower is unavoidable for this angle. And maybe the clone is allowed? in this case :) --Laitche (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, impressing. Are you going to upload it as a derivative? I would like not to replace this one because the TV tower is somehow part of the arrangement (as Livio said). --Code (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem :) --Laitche (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! --Code (talk) 05:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Christian Ferrer 04:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 06:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 07:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 07:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The wider crop at the bottom is MUCH better. Now I can support with clear conscience :) --Tuxyso (talk) 06:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 14:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 05:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Granja en la península de Akranes, Vesturland, Islandia, 2014-08-15, DD 104.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2015 at 21:12:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Scene of a farm building and icelandic horses in the Akranes peninsula, not far from Reykjavík and with the Hvalfjörður fjord in the background. All by me, Poc o² 21:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 21:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little crispiness would be nice... Beautiful composition... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment oversharpened? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this proper version? overprocessed... --Laitche (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 18:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ջուր.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2015 at 09:17:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by User:6AND5 - uploaded by User:6AND5 - nominated by 6AND5 -- 6AND5 (talk) 09:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 6AND5 (talk) 09:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp, DoF too small, disturbing lights, noisy. Sorry, IMO not FP.--XRay ^talk 10:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Color space tagged as sRGB without an embedded color profile. Some browsers and apps may treat the colors randomly. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: as per XRay's comment. Yann (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2015 (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:Breaking wave at pier at sunset, Nørre Vorupør, Denmark, 2015-07-09-5617.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2015 at 08:15:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info We had a rare small summer storm the other day, and I went to the West Coast of Denmark as sunset was approaching to witness the roaring nature. Since the wind had been hard for many hours at this time, large swells had been building up, leading to large breaking waves when hitting the pier. Image quality is much worse than my usual standards. Due to large amounts of sea spray and sand particles in the air, my lens was covered with a salt film after a few seconds after cleaning it, that combined with the timing requirements and the limited visibility to the end of the pier has led to a low pixel quality. Still I find that the wow mitigates it. Created, uploaded, nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 08:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info Fun fact: On the evening/night this photo was taken, the unusually strong wind conditions resulted in 116% of national electricity consumption being produced by wind farms and at 3AM the next morning at low demand, wind production exceeded 140% of current demand. The surplus electrical energy was exported to Sweden, Norway and Germany. [5] -- Slaunger (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Slaunger (talk) 08:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sadly, not even sharp at 3 MP, and the wow really needs to be POTY finalist level for me to support something this unsharp. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sorry, per King. Really shaky. — Julian H.^✈ 18:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your comments. Let us clear the space for something else. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Red rose with black background.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2015 at 11:25:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info Red rose (Kardinal) with black background. c/u/n by Laitche (talk) 11:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitche (talk) 11:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--LivioAndronico talk 12:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp enough, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sharpness is acceptable. --Laitche (talk) 13:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course ! You nominated it as a FP candidate !--Jebulon (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)😀[reply]

I just copied below Arion's nom comment :) --Laitche (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Dont see any problem with sharpness. Sometime flowers are done wide open for that. However, you could leave stem visible. --Mile (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work. --Code (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 05:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, I'm Britney judging... have some pure black in the main object, and this shadow not good for the photo, and this magenta thing on the edge of petals (see notes). Just changing whites, blacks and shadows most of this goes see here, and brings more a scarlet red to the photo. Water drops could increase the "wow factor", but I like the photo, for obvious reasons ... -- RTA 08:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RTA: Thanks for your review! Unfortunately I am not usually bringing water drops... --Laitche (talk) 10:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RTA: I fixed weird? magenta and intentionally a bit darker this image from the original because of black background so couldn't brighter shadow, Regards. --Laitche (talk) 11:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Laitche I still can see that, but not seems to border the community, or my monitor can show me that, but the averages no (or I see ~~dead people~~ magenta)... so... And yeah, normally I spend some time to cleaning the background, and some time on the set-up to have this pure dark, but without affecting the main object. See this [6] could help :). -- RTA 16:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RTA: Thanks for your advice and information, I will try that next time :) --Laitche (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sharpness is average, but I like the color and the contrast with dark background. --Yann (talk) 09:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Σπάρτακος (talk) 10:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 20:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support distinguished look.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 08:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blown red channel makes some areas look magenta. — Julian H.^✈ 07:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Φαράγγι Σαμαριάς 3754.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2015 at 11:32:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Greece
Info created by C messier - uploaded by C messier - nominated by C messier -- C messier (talk) 11:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Samaria gorge is the largest of the canyons of Crete, and of the largest in Europe, with 16 km length and nearly a mile deep. In this photo is visible less than the half of the gorge. It is open from May to Octomber, so this winter view is rather uncommon. Support -- C messier (talk) 11:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know if it will be "ναι" or "οχί", but you should crop out the cars at left IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 12:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

lol! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Done όχι, όχι οχί, I hope you say «ναι» --C messier (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support So... όχι... I hope Greece will return to the planet Earth and will pay its debts as any civilized people would do. Beautiful picture and country, though. -- Pofka (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like a romanesque painting of the 1850s, or something japanese. I like it very much. Therefore, it is "ναι". For the rest, every expression of democracy is a victory, but no dream: the debt will never be paid completely, and Europe without Greece is a non sense. Let's play and live with that now, and long live Greece !💶💶💶--Jebulon (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ναι to your picture of Samaria gorge - and good luck to you in the difficult days and months to come --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow! very nice. --Ralf Roleček 20:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 04:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Mood and light are great but I think the composition should be better for FP. Not good enough to support, not bad enough to oppose. --Laitche (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry,not wow for me --LivioAndronico talk 13:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support In my opinion special atmosphere. --Famberhorst (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice atmosphere. --Karelj (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mäetaguse Rosenite kabel sisevaade.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2015 at 18:19:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created and uploaded by Amadvr - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It would be nice to have a better description. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very different place, but well depicted. --Tremonist (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:N.Odorata.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2015 at 00:37:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created by SanctuaryX - uploaded by SanctuaryX - nominated by SanctuaryX -- SanctuaryX (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Well detailed image of the flower, making it easily identifiable, with good technical quality, and does not suffer from under or overexposure. It offers some scientific detail as well, with clear view to the reproductive organs, three of the four bracts, the top side and underside of the lily pads, developing lily pads, and venation on the underside of the lily pad is visible. A few stems of the lily pads are visible as well. SanctuaryX (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too soft and unsharp. No details and halos around the petals visible. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How are there "no details visible"? If you're being hyperbolic, I don't think a critique is an appropriate place for that. You can see venation clearly, the reproductive organs (as the flower is bisexual) and how they connect to the axis, and you can even see the circle in the axis where the stem attaches to the flower, the waxy leaf surface, and even wrinkles in the petals. Alchemist-hp -- SanctuaryX (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Quite good. Yann (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The soft focus is acceptable for me, about halos per Alchemist-hp and the composition is a bit unbalanced to me. --Laitche (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alchemist.--Jebulon (talk) 09:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Laitche. --Tremonist (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:USS Annapolis ICEX.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2015 at 01:34:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles#Ships
Info created by Petty Officer 1st Class Tiffini M. Jones - uploaded by Cla68 - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 01:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 01:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It could be better, but it is extraordinay anyway. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Should be croped. --Mile (talk) 06:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose yeap, for me the top creates a distraction and removes the infinity kind of look. But also this should be more white, very close to pure white, this is snow, wrong exposure creates this grey feeling. -- RTA 08:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Uncropped is better. --Kikos (talk) 08:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tilted, noisy, shadow cut at left, quite small. Yann (talk) 09:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is not high enough. -- Pofka (talk) 10:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I agree with Yann, but I like it somehow. --Tremonist (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I believe the quality issue is less important with unique images. The wow factor counts more for FPC --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak support The quality is not good in toto but wow shot. --Laitche (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ενορία 6899.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2015 at 14:57:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info View of village Enoria, central Euboea, Greece during a winter afternoon. At the background is visible the cape of Oktonia. All by me. -- C messier (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- C messier (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is a bit plain, with much of the foreground being dark and nondescript. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could a crop help? --C messier (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My idea of a crop would remove so many pixels that it would be barely over the minimum resolution. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please leave a note. This isn't the only photo I took of the location. --C messier (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Color space tagged as sRGB, without an embedded color profile. Browsers and apps may treat the colors wrong. Also an issue in the initial upload. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a lot of uninteresting darkness in the foreground. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Slaunger: Color profile added. Yann (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Yann! -- Slaunger (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Tremonist (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --C messier (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Col Aubisque.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2015 at 10:46:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created by Myrabella - uploaded by Myrabella - nominated by Σπάρτακος -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 10:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 10:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 20:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Nice composition though slightly unsharp. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Composition and colours are great but I think the sharpness should be better for FP. Not good enough to support, not bad enough to oppose. --Code (talk) 05:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per Code --Laitche (talk) 07:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Iconic place for the Tour de France, but per "neutrals" (I think that if it is not good enough to support, then I have to oppose).--Jebulon (talk) 09:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--LivioAndronico talk 12:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Code. --Tremonist (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 3 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Externsteine High Resolution v2 2015.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2015 at 19:37:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info High resolution photo (211 Mpx) of the famous German stone formation Externsteine
all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW! Absolutely impressive. Light and composition couldn't be better and the quality is perfect. And I think I should visit this place soon. --Code (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--LivioAndronico talk 22:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing! Very clear image. --Laitche (talk) 08:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am amazed too. By its unnecessary size of merely 100 MB and fact i cant open it. So, what is benefit of stone in 1:10 or 10:1 ? If effect is wow, he bring me to faces of visitors then i would oppose. --Mile (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Mile, why are you complaining at FP about the problems with your PC. Sadly Commons zoom viewer seems broken more often that it works but I'd recommend that for large photos viewed in a browser. Obviously such a photo must work as an image at screen-resolution. But it also works as source-media for exploring the rock formation in detail or for allowing multiple crop opportunities. So it has high EV due to its great resolution. If you have problems viewing such an image, complain on the Village Pump that the zoom viewer is broken, or that Commons has had it's "thumbnailer" (the software that downsizes images for view) crippled so it can't create large downsized versions. -- Colin (talk) 14:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support and I won't even ask you to focus-stack the bench. :) — Julian H.^✈ 13:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing detail. It is a good photo in screen size but there is also much to explore in detail. -- Colin (talk) 14:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --XRay ^talk 15:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 09:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 10:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cultic. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 12:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Salinas del Carmen 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2015 at 13:37:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 13:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 13:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting composition and high EV. --Code (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have a problem with the scale, proportion. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Perhaps this one [7] is useful, compare the size of the persons and the building --Llez (talk) 05:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Info I really wanted to know because I have visited the salt production flats in Guerrero Negro, Baja California Sur, Mexico because it is hard to get a sense of the vastness of the production grounds, that stretch as far as the eye can see, and it is hard to get a sense of scale. I photographed the trucks at the flats after they were loaded File:Salt production in Guerrero Negro.jpg and here File:Salt production in Guerrero Negro 2.jpg but found it impossible top capture the scale of the operation because it is just white and huge.... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--LivioAndronico talk 22:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sssssssssss! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something new. --Yann (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Oppose:~~ Noise is ok at around 6 MP, but the clipping is quite prominent I think, and avoidable, sorry. Really nice subject though. — Julian H.^✈ 14:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Julian, there's no clipping in this photo. The salt is bright as it should be, but not clipped. I can open this in Camera Raw and increase the exposure and see as more and more grains clip -- so it isn't even like it was clipped and recovered to leave an off-white area. The information is there. -- Colin (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hm. There's definitely clipping if I open the image in gimp. The left flanks of the heaps are about 50% of 255. It's true that there are some pixels with lower values in-between, and I have to admit that there's more information there than I thought there was. But there is definitely not a lot of visible detail there, much less than without the clipping. I'll think about my vote. — Julian H.^✈ 14:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't see 5% never mind 50% of the left side completely clipped. Plenty numbers in the 250s so quite reasonable to expect some of them (still a small minority) to be 255 in one channel but that in itself doesn't mean that channel is clipped -- just that it hit the max. In the nearest mound, there's only a tiny area that is 255/255/255. If you are seeing large areas at 255/255/255 then I have to wonder if your Gimp is applying some transform on the image you see. -- Colin (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - In that case, I'll remove my vote until I know where that difference comes from. — Julian H.^✈ 16:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 15:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 15:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent, I like the contrast brown/white and the perspective.--Jebulon (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 22:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 12:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Remarkable color contrast, good composition. --Laitche (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Altough IMO image is slightly tilted clockwise, D kuba (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Love padlocks at Butchers' Bridge (Ljubljana).JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2015 at 12:45:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info Love padlocks by night. Butchers' Bridge in Ljubljana, Slovenia. All by --Mile (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info about photo: OOC croped, did on telezoom for better bokeh.
Support -- Mile (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 15:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 15:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely subject and bokeh. --Laitche (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice subject. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tuxyso (talk) 07:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 11:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the excellent photographic execution _{and although I don't care much for the motif itself...} --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Balles2601 (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Monrepos 0550.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2015 at 09:44:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Pavlikhin - nominated by A.Savin --A.Savin 09:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 09:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support what a mood! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 15:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romantic. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 11:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mile (talk) 12:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Brateevsky {talk} 14:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Balles2601 (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Strandkörbe in Sellin.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2015 at 05:43:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Beach chairs at the beach of Sellin (Rügen). All by me. -- Code (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Code (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition and colors, very clear image. --Laitche (talk) 06:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little bit too much of sky? -- Pofka (talk) 08:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I tend to answer to @Pofka: : no. The sky is not boring-empty-blue, many things happen, clouds are beautiful, and add to this very nice composition. I like this picture very much--Jebulon (talk) 09:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is nothing special. The sea is unappealing and the sky merely nice. The subject, the chairs, are hard to see from this angle of view and so crowded at the very bottom of the frame. These beach chairs offer much photographic potential but that's not been exploited here. Compare File:Sellin, Strandkörbe am Hauptstrand -- 2009 -- 1.jpg by XRay, which won the January 2014 photo challenge and is FP in my opinion. -- Colin (talk) 11:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At least they don't look like toilets. --Code (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now you mention it.... :-) -- Colin (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If exactly the same ingredient, tuna for instance, I cannot compare French food with sushi... --Laitche (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment crop (note), nothing special on this sky. -- RTA 13:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion. For me the sky is an important part of the composition so I think it shouldn't be cropped. Without the sky it would just be a photo of beach chairs. With the sky it looks much more abstract and balanced in my eyes. I hope you understand. --Code (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+1 !But often here, only postcard-pure-blue-skies are apreciated, even if living skies are far much more dificult to be taken in photograph. A pity. This sky is excellent and very interesting !--Jebulon (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support good composition, a very nice image. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin, composition is inferior to the other one. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review and I'm fine with your vote but I don't really understand why we always have to compare pictures with each other. I think every candidate should be evaluated for itself. XRay's picture is great in my eyes but it's completely different. I knew his picture and thought about it when I made my own photo but I think it wouldn't have had much benefit for us if I would just have done the same shot again. --Code (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
+1 --Laitche (talk) 06:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
+1 --Jebulon (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We compare with others for several reasons. The primary one is that FP actually requires it. This isn't "Nice pictures" or "Pictures I Like" but "the finest on Commons". That means we must look at the category of similar images and conclude this is among the very best we have. So being significantly inferior to another Commons image is a valid reason to oppose. Secondly, remember that not everything a reviewer mentions is their "reason to oppose". They may be simply giving examples of where a different approach was taken that was successful. I agree XRay's picture is different, though the subject is the same. If I though this composition / angle of view wasn't successful, I'd hardly suggest you look at a similar one. Certainly I wouldn't expect you to duplicate another image, but one can get ideas and try a variation. The fact that these chairs are identical and patterned and placed in rows is crying out for a photograph that exploits those attributes, rather than one that clumps them together at the bottom of the frame. So "evaluated for itself": no that's not what FP is for. Try QI for that. -- Colin (talk) 06:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP is not for searching the best picture of a certain subject. That's what VI is for. We're not featuring "The finest picture of a certain subject on Commons" but "The finest pictures on Commons". It's absolutely possible to have more than one FP of a certain subject. Go to Category:Eiffel_Tower and click on "Featured pictures". There are 14 of them! If you oppose a certain FP nomination because you don't like the composition (what seems to be the case here) or because you think the quality is bad it's perfectly ok for me. But just to say there are better pictures of the same subject is not a valid argument in my eyes. --Code (talk) 07:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria is "among the finest" so, no I'm not confusing this with VI, and I already explained that comparison is not all about the oppose reasons but also about suggesting alternative approaches. We have several FPs of some subjects and presumably at each time people thought they were among the finest. It is quite possible for several images to be excellent. How you decided to group the image among its peers is varied as describing the subject/technique is varied. We often compare bird, plant, architecture, panoramas against their peers in those categories. I don't know why you and two others think this is odd, because I'm sure they do it too. If someone nominates an average photo of the Eiffel Tower, I quite expect someone to say "we already have several much better ones of the Eiffel Tower". Or people say "sorry the standard of butterfly photos is much higher than this". We absolutely do not evaluate each candidate in isolation, and I hope you don't. It is really common that images are opposed and the nominator pointed to a category where superior examples can be found. To make it clear, I didn't oppose because this was inferior to the other image of those chairs. I opposed because the composition is poor. -- Colin (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is shorthand for, "I don't like the composition of this one, with all the chairs bunched up in a single line below the horizon. The other photo shows how the scene can be captured better." --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Hubertl (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Worker of Korea Party Monument.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2015 at 18:30:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created and uploaded by Gilad.rom - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Everything visible. :) --Tremonist (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Torre de Macao, 2013-08-08, DD 07.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2015 at 18:33:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info View of Sai Van Bridge and the Macau Tower with the island of Taipa in the background, Macau. Note this images was nominated some time ago, but the main reason to fail then (distortion of the tower) was addressed. All by me, Poc o² 18:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 18:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a composition! --Mart･･･ Laitche (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture! --Yann (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry, I like towers and for sure also the Macau Tower. But this skyline picture is not composed very well. The right lower part is not very interesting or good-looking. The weather is also not the best. A good QI, but I see n.th. outstanding here. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As previously described, sorry. Actually, I also think it's not ideal to correct the distortion of some of the tower but then leave the antenna, making it internally inconsistent. Even though the correction is quite impressive. If you really want no distortion, a cylindrical projection would work. However, as previously mentioned, I was actually fine with the original distortion. — Julian H.^✈ 13:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition. --Tremonist (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad weather selection. The lighting is very poor on most of objects. -- Pofka (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 21:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:ForestParkGysum.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2015 at 17:09:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created & uploaded Far-gh - nominated by Far-gh -- Farshid . Talk 17:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Farshid . Talk 17:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry: Sky is completely blown, there is CA all over the picture and it's uncategorized. The composition is nice somehow but not FP-worthy either, I think. --Code (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Code. --Laitche (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Color space tagged as sRGB without an embedded color profile. Some browsers and apps may treat the colors randomly. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Slaunger: Color profile added. Yann (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, Yann! -- Slaunger (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Code. --Tremonist (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality issues (sky). -- Pofka (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 07:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral Interior, Liverpool, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2015 at 13:55:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support the only issue do not overcame this exquisite job. -- RTA 15:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is this the interior of UFO? --Laitche (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The question arises if one votes on a photographic rendition or a photographic interpretation of a subject. The technique is impecable, but I think that the relationship of the ceiling and the ground is somewhat off. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And what is off about the relationship? I know you struggle with wide angle perspective, but this is just how it looks. The vertical angle of view is larger for the ceiling than the floor (you are looking up at the central dome at a greater angle than to the centre of the seating), so the ceiling angles away more than the floor. If I was able to take the photo from exactly half the height of the cathedral, the floor and ceiling would have the same angle. Diliff (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Between Colin´s and your comments lies the answer. Basically distorted and out of proportion... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - The problem I have is that I think some people, such as Colin and yourself, have a pretty narrow minded view of what is acceptable distortion. Distortion is often simply an unavoidable characteristic of a wide angle rectilinear projection - it isn't inherently 'the devil' or something that must always be corrected, just as fisheye projection shouldn't always be corrected. Anyway, just my opinion. Enough said already. Diliff (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, you are entitled to your opinion as to our narrow mindness, and such argument could be used on your own judgements. My pictures many times are opposed on grounds that I consider superfluos but such is life. I still think that more of a photographic representation this is more of a photographic interpretation, and I just do not like the way the visual balance of the image, which is a subjective opinion, but based on altered proportion and distortion by your own admission. For me it does not work. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Well I think my enjoyment of some fisheye images shows I don't have some "no wider than 50-degree FOV rectilinear" narrow mindset. And many of us enjoy wide outdoor panoramas. Sometimes one gets away with it and sometimes one doesn't. Here, the angle made with the ceiling gives some misleading impressions and a 2D picture doesn't have the clues to help our brains correct that. The strong perspective is unnatural, making the distant wall seem tiny. One could exploit that extreme perspective in an artistic way but here I don't see advantages to that since it makes the focal-point of the room very small. The choice of where to stand, what to aim at, what focal length to use, what projection to use, where to crop/extend vertically and horizontally are all choices that can make or break a picture. At times I feel you are arguing that because the projection obeys the laws of physics then anyone who disagrees with those choices you made is being "narrow minded". It might be this FOV/projection would have worked if you were higher up birds-eye-view or right on the floor like an ant. Who knows? Here, the combination of factors becomes unfortunate rather than gloriously weird. I'm sure I've supported other pictures you took with similar FOV, but perhaps there the subject was more cooperative. (Or I'm just inconsistent) -- Colin (talk) 07:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. If you crop on top to the border of cupola its much more pleasant sight. Try. --Mile (talk) 06:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The shape of the ceiling is misleading. This image makes it look like the ceiling has a shallow slope, which doesn not appear to be the case. Also, the extreme perspective of the wide-angle view makes the central crown-of-thorns small and the distant half of the room look tiny. This diminishes the value of the image in illustrating those aspects. I find it hard work to visualise the interior as circular. I suspect this cathedral needs a collection of smaller angle-of-view images combined with a 360 panorama viewer. I don't think trying to capture it in one 2D photo is successful and the effect isn't artistically interesting enough for me to award points on that ground. (I see from the earlier link and this one that there may be a viewing position higher up, though possibly not for the public.) -- Colin (talk) 07:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Colin, I still think the arguments you make about the projection of this image could equally apply to fisheye images or any other non-standard wide angle projection. I still don't see it as being fundamentally that different. Yes, this projection isn't 100% rectilinear. The roof has been vertically compressed in order to avoid it being too distorted and that has resulted in the roof not looking as steep as it would normally. I could pick apart your fisheye images of interiors for not being geometrically accurate too, but the point is that non-rectilinear projections are needed to capture a wide scene like this. Yes there are compromises involved, but I think it's better to have a single image that doesn't capture the interior absolutely geometrically accurately than to have numerous single images that don't give you a sense of the overall space of the interior. I agree that a 360 degree viewer would be ideal though. But since we don't have that, I honestly don't see how it could be captured better. Anyway, I respect your opinion that it doesn't work for you, but I just think that it is a legitimate alternative projection just as fisheye or Panini or cylindrical or spherical is. It may or may not work in this instance, but I think it's the best projection for this view. Diliff (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll see if I can find a projection that doesn't compress the ceiling so much while retaining the other qualities. If I can come up with an improvement, I'll upload it over the top. Diliff (talk) 11:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - It isn't that there's something fundamentally wrong about a chosen projection. I've seen some fisheye of this cathedral and in some ways they look more natural but in others (curved walls) they don't. The decision for a particular scene is whether the flaws of a particular projection when taken to an extreme like this are too much or too misleading. I think fisheye images often give enough clues to the viewer that you are looking at an unusual perspective, where as this doesn't give the same clues. Therefore I think there is too much risk that their eye gets the wrong impression. With all scenes with a wide (or tall) angle of view, there is an increased risk that the distortion of a chosen perspective is accepted or is found unacceptable. Partly that's the subject matter (nobody cares much if the clouds in the sky are stretched) and partly that is viewer expectations and tastes. I don't think the projection + angle-of-view works for this subject. -- Colin (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Most people do seemed to be bothered by curved walls though. Perhaps you're not because you're familiar with the fisheye projection and your bias allows you to view fisheye images without feeling that they are misleading. I'm familiar with other non-standard projections that keep verticals straight but distort other aspects of the image. That may be my bias too. But I don't think most people are familiar with any non-standard projections, particularly when exaggerated by the wide angle of view (hence our many debates with people about whether it's natural or not). ;-) As for the roof's lack of perceived slant, I've given it a go and come up with a number of combinations of no vertical compression, a lack of emphasis straight verticals to let them lean inwards slightly, etc, but none of these adjustments will change the look of the roof. It seems that because I was at a raised POV, the camera is actually looking along the slanted roof to the central cupola and no amount of adjustments will resolve this. The far side is slanted strongly, but because it is distant looking in this image, it is the foreground beams that become your frame of reference. This is just the way it looks from this position I'm afraid, regardless of projection. I just think that sometimes what looks wrong actually isn't, geometrically speaking. The first image you linked to to show the roof slanting at a greater angle is slightly misleading because it's not a particularly wide view and the only beams you see clearly are the ones behind the cupola, not in front and to the side. If you were to see the beams on the left and right side of it, you'd have the same visual effect as in my image I think, although as you say, it also benefits from a much higher vantage point (there certainly wasn't any open to the public - the only vantage points available inside were the two galleries, you can see the other on the opposite end) which helps to lessen the sense of looking up at it. If you're happy with such a narrow view, fine, but I think this interior deserves a more encompassing view. Diliff (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I opposed my own File:St Pancras Railway Station 2012-06-23.jpg when it came up at WP:FP. It is a widely used picture and ticks a lot of boxes, capturing the whole of two sides of the building. But it has strong perspective due to the wide-angle view. I could also say that station "deserves a more encompassing view" and has high EV, etc, etc. -- Colin (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 13:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 07:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting view and colours and the quality is good as always. --Code (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting building. I agree the distortion might be felt as a bit strange (bad english ? Sorry), but there is nothing my poor brain could not understand. Furthermore I think there is the only way to show a part of the excellent stained glass windows of the drum of the oculus in the center. A pity the lamp is not straight vertical...--Jebulon (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 07:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mamão papaia em fundo preto.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2015 at 14:17:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info all by Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
Support -- RTA 14:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good colours, good contrast. Good as an illustration. --Tremonist (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but posterization between the fruits and the reflection cut not like --LivioAndronico talk 17:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about the use of English [...]

- Sorry, could re-write Livioandronico2013 ? -- RTA 17:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - entre os frutos que parece posterized também reflete bem cortadas não gosto --LivioAndronico talk 17:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I live a note --LivioAndronico talk 17:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - So, "Sorry, but I do not like the posterization between the fruits and the reflection" ?? That's it? If it's it okay, have some "posterization", not much on the reflection, but on the back fruit. On the reflection is the black perspex darking the fruit. You can write in Italian for me, bello ;). -- RTA 17:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Maybe you must Re-read--LivioAndronico talk 17:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        No... that is not English and this is not Portuguese also. I'm saying that you cold write in Italian, if you wish so, because I can read. It is correct "Sorry, but I do not like the posterization between the fruits and the reflection" ?
        
        And that's the sRGB 8 bits problem, the ProPhoto 16 bits do not have this JPEG artefact, I will re-upload this. -- RTA 18:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed -- RTA 18:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Undoubtedly better. However continues don't like me the cut of reflection so for me it is neutral--LivioAndronico talk 19:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I get @Livioandronico2013: , well, I was improving that before I saw your answer; the problem is that in the original file have some water between the perplex and the fruit, because of previous shoots with water drops (that end it up not a good idea for this one), so have a flat and weird cut because of the water, also Fixed. -- RTA 19:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done although I would expect a little more sharpness from a studio shot. --Code (talk) 04:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DOF is to low. Sorry but f/5 for a macro shoot is not enought for a good DOF. Please use the focus stacking technique or use f/10 or better f/16 for this kind of shoots. Otherwise nice. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Alchemist-hp what the fuck are you talking about? This is the result of 22 images stacked, this is a papaya, it's soft... and for the others, this is the original colour, not a touch in saturation, check the google if you do not know about the subject before say things like that The Photographer and Colin... -- RTA 12:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Aha, and where can I read it: "This is the result of 22 images stacked"??? DOF is still to low for me or the sharpness isn't ok. Please take a look to one of my macro images too. Thanks, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is not a macro photo... and I don't have time for a "I'm better then you"... I already told you that this is a soft fruit, will not be crisp as this, and that is maximum that I can extract from my equipment, this is not a 5D II with a 100mm, it is a Kiss X7 with a 125 USD lens... And Be-140g.jpg it's not a flawless technique also... -- RTA 18:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hi RTA, my "old" image: Be-140g.jpg isn't an FP image ;-) OK!? Your image is a very nice image, but simply not FP for me. Best regards, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Heinrich, this already get, I was just saying that you was wrong about me not knowing about the technique... just that... Anyway, peace!-- RTA 18:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - RTA, mind your words. You are expected to stay mellow even if people criticize your work. Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - When people say things that makes no sense Yann, why should why stay cool about it?? For politics? -- RTA 18:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Courtesy, decency, cordiality and good faith is the secret to turn this environment into a place of peace, cooperation and support of all of us that after all we are brothers. --The Photographer (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That coming from you, HEHEHEHEHEE, okay... V -- RTA 19:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Satured, focus problem peer Alchemist-hp --The Photographer (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not exceptional enough for FP. Low in detail/sharpness and looks too saturated. -- Colin (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality issues. Kruusamägi (talk) 05:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 07:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jade Raymond Feb 2012-cropped.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2015 at 11:51:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by ZCooperstown - uploaded by Brandmeister - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice expression. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A gorgeous lady with warm smile. --Alborzagros (talk) 12:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice photo, ~~good quality~~ see note, nice pose but I cannot find wow factor. _{except the subject...} --Laitche (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see the posterisation that you've pointed out. Even when I brightened the image by a huge amount, it didn't introduce any significant posterisation. The shadows look very clean to me. Judging from the areas you've highlighted though, I'm guessing that what you mean is blown shadows (no detail visible due to clipping). Diliff (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Diliff: Yes, I mean clipping (in this case also called blocked up shadows?). I didn't know that word... --Laitche (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, we wouldn't say 'blocked up shadows'. Just blown or clipped I think. Although blown is usually used for clipping of the highlights, not shadows. Diliff (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Diliff: Ok, thanks. Sometimes I am confused about English of photography... --Laitche (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        No problem, I'm happy to explain any time! It's sometimes confusing even for many of us native English speakers, so don't worry. Diliff (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Conditional oppose~~ Embedded AdobeRGB color space not recommended for web use. Many browsers and applications are not capable of properly interpreting the color information and will display random colors. Use sRGB instead. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment AdobeRGB was also used in the initial upload, so it is not a color space introduced later in the edit by Diliff. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I hadn't checked the profile when I made the edit. I'll upload a new version with the correct profile. Diliff (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks Diliff. I have verified that your new upload has a proper sRGB color space and embedded profile. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 18:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. An interesting and aesthetic portrait. Diliff (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 06:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Farshid . Talk 07:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Prionus besikanus lateral view Ateret 072015.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2015 at 12:25:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info created by Sir Shurf - uploaded by Sir Shurf - nominated by Sir Shurf -- Sir Shurf (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sir Shurf (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh lighting and insufficient depth of field. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

maybe I should elaborate how this picture came into being. This Prionus is a night dweller and not a common one. The picture was taken at 2:30am. It was a rare luck that it came under the light and was still enough time for me to focus on it. To take lateral view picture I had to put the camera side on the ground and pick the least angle possible to catch most of it. Probably this explains the harsh lighting. Considering DOF, I don't quite understand, IMHO the picture clearly shows the 3-D of the scene and the creature. Sir Shurf (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Color space tagged as sRGB without an embedded color profile. Browsers and apps may treat the colors randomly. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What should/can be done about it? Thanks, Sir Shurf (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you should have a look at your workflow. Try to upload versions of your photos at different places in your workflow to Jeffrey's Exif Viewer. Look for color profile warnings to identify the step where the embedded color profile data are lost. Depending on your camera and settings: If you are working on the jpg out-of-camera (raw is recommended), the camera may itself strip the embedded color profile. See also User talk:Slaunger#Yet another colour profile question. Hope that helps. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Slaunger: Color profile added. Yann (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Yann! -- Slaunger (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. --Tremonist (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting. -- Pofka (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lucky Dados en Madgarden Festival 2015 - 22.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2015 at 19:10:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info Lucky Dados at Madgarden Fest 2015, Madrid, Spain. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Kadellar (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kadellar (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support without a mike in front of the face ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hahaha he's got a huge double bass just in front of him... are you sure? --Kadellar (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shot! --Laitche (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support the remains of a double bass, if I may say... Does he play tennis or hockey with it ? --Jebulon (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Worse: He's playing Rockabilly with it. [8][9] ;-) --El Grafo (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Laitche. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 20:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. Really excellent. I wish that green band wasn't as green as it is, it messes up the colour palette. — Julian H.^✈ 11:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great shot. Diliff (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support You can hear the bass` strings flick. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 06:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great concert photograph. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 19:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow!! I hoped this would be FP, but I wasn't expecting so much support, because it's always so difficult to get votes for concert pictures. Thank you very much for your reviews! --Kadellar (talk) 11:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Sympetrum darwinianum, Keitakuen, Osaka II.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2015 at 20:07:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Laitche -- Laitche (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitche (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great sharpness, nice colors Poc o² 20:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 21:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 06:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Balles2601 (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Macro level details from a tele. Great work! J e e 02:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 19:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Triumph of the Name of Jesus.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2015 at 15:09:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info All by LivioAndronico talk 15:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico talk 15:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The painting is overexposed （＾＾） --Laitche (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Laitche,I don't think too much,thanks--LivioAndronico talk 19:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a joke so you don't need any fixing... --Laitche (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--LivioAndronico talk 19:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wow! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good shining job! --Laitche (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The centre of image is not clear (no detail)- wrong exposition, overeposed. --Karelj (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karelj think that you have serious problems with your monitor --LivioAndronico talk 21:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Please LivioAndronico, try to avoid this kind of offensive comments, it is useless and may create conflicts...--Jebulon (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jebulon say that a monitor is calibrated not offensive in my country !!!--LivioAndronico talk 12:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soon also sneeze will be offensive--LivioAndronico talk 12:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Code (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support senz'altro --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support LivioAndronico, I think you are improving your technique day after day. You offer us a very interesting collection of baroque ceilings from Italy, Thanks for that !--Jebulon (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New toy Jebulon--LivioAndronico talk 20:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Frescoes are very lively. --Mile (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wishbone Ash 2015 - 03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2015 at 16:07:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info Andy Powell of rock band Wishbone Ash live in Madrid, Spain. Created, uploaded, nominated by -- Kadellar (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kadellar (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the microphone in front of the face is a "no go" for me, sorry. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you almost only accept side shots or when they are not singing. Too radical, he is singing and you can see 90% of his face. --Kadellar (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And how about with a "higher view"? The mike looks like a large bogger, very unfavorable :-( ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was impossible to have a higher point of view (I wish!), this stage is quite high. I also couldn't move from where I stood, which was a pity because the pictures I took are not so varied. --Kadellar (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great shot that conveys the atmosphere well and is technically sound. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Frank, but removing CA on the top of the head would be better. --Laitche (talk) 12:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any CA. In concerts it is usually a reflection of the stage lights in the tiniest hairs rather than CA, see the left arm here. But I think it's not the case here, I can't see anything, really. --Kadellar (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can see the green and orange? border, anyway see fixed version (not only head but also forehead.). --Laitche (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition/crop. Head is stucked too much into the corner. --Mile (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support When you want to catch a singer singing on stage, microphones almost inevitably become a problem. I think this is actually handled pretty well here. The low angle works almost surprisingly well, nice expression on the face. --El Grafo (talk) 11:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Quite good, but I would crop a bit the bottom. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Half lower part of the picture is uninteresting, and the microphone is too prominent.--Jebulon (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support If the microphone wasn't where it is, it would look like he's crying. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you very much for your support and reviews! --Kadellar (talk) 11:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Gavião caramujeiro.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2015 at 16:31:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created and uploaded by Claudney Neves - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak support Beautiful subject,but....a few small,too space on the right --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Livioandronico2013: Beautiful is your signature! Too space on the right is from the rule of thirds. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak support per Livio. I don't see how the rule of thirds applies here. Pls consider a crop, Arion. Thank you. --Tremonist (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't crop anything, let breath this bird. Yann (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Many days and few votes. Surely another next nomination. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Igreja Matriz São Luiz de Toloza (interior).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2015 at 11:42:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created by RTA - uploaded by RTA (edited by Poco a poco) - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark? Benches are barely visible. Altar isn't of the finest quality. Stained glasses are almost completely blown. I'm sorry. Though, I truly like that ceiling. -- Pofka (talk) 12:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment tks ArionEstar, but this was a almost snap shoot, so... no FPC... -- RTA 12:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:East and West Shaking hands at the laying of last rail Union Pacific Railroad - Restoration.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2015 at 03:17:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by Andrew J. Russell - restored, uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info Not a particularly difficult restoration, but one of an iconic image. Lots of specks to clean up, but nothing too hard. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Iconic indeed. And good job, even easy.--Jebulon (talk) 09:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting, good work. Yann (talk) 09:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support reminds me of this :) --Laitche (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 04:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Parque Lage por Pedro Botton 03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2015 at 02:36:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Bedro Botton - uploaded by Pikolas - nominated by Pikolas -- ~★ pikolas ^{[[mia diskuto]]} 02:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ~★ pikolas ^{[[mia diskuto]]} 02:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unfavorable crop of the top, the small part of the sky are overexposed, chromatic aberration and the quality: the image looks too soft for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 04:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alchemist and per pretty wrong white balance. I think the image is clearly too magenta, although if that could be corrected it could be quite useful for wp etc. --DXR (talk) 07:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, sorry. --Tremonist (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. -- Pofka (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kelly Gale 2014.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2015 at 19:15:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events_.28Arts.2C_concerts.2C_shows....29
Info Kelly Gale models Victoria's Secret underwear while wearing traditional-styled Indian clothing. Created by Paul Bayfield at Timesniper.com - uploaded and nominated by Rainbow unicorn -- Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry. Just a beautiful....picture, but too noise for be FP for me. Also this would be front page but on....playboy (I think) --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...it's Victoria's Secret, they sell women's clothing, so it's different from Playboy. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so ... I'm not an expert --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

W 💛 💚 W --Laitche (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per LivioAndronico. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe great EV at Anorexia nervosa? J e e 08:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jee I never thought she'd be an accurate example, but maybe you know for sure? And while she may be closer to that than she is to this (and this), I don't think it would be that big of a gain in EV. And until we know for sure, it's safe to assume that she's a good candidate for this, or at least a better one than most... Rainbow unicorn (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per above. Also this is far to be "traditional-styled Indian clothing". ;oD Yann (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all the others. --Tremonist (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality issues. -- Pofka (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: as per above comments. Yann (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2015 (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:Inland Thornbill (5669197054).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2015 at 16:38:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info created by User:Patko erika - uploaded by User:Patko erika - nominated by Sdivad -- Sdivad (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sdivad (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info I am not sure of course but I feel the original is tilted ccw hence I nominated the alternative. --Laitche (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Birds can actually sit like this, but perhaps the alternative appears more pleasant. I do Support this version, too, assuming it might be a natural position. --Tremonist (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! Why not? -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt looks more beautiful; but I doubt the body positioning here is due to the complicated perch than an easy perch below. J e e 08:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info Rotated clockwise 7 degrees and cropped. --Laitche (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great lens, anyway. --Laitche (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would leave exposition as on original. --Mile (talk) 01:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 02:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support better --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 06:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 07:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. — Julian H.^✈ 07:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not true for this bird! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When the original get seven or more than seven supports, I will withdraw this alternative. --Laitche (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Much prefer this crop. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Inland Thornbill (5669197054) - edit.jpg

File:Alfred T. Palmer - Assembling the North American B-25 Mitchell at Kansas City, Kansas (USA).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2015 at 21:02:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by Alfred T. Palmer, restored and uploaded by Adam Cuerden and Chris Woodrich, nominated by Yann
Support --Yann (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support (of course) As I remember, getting the colour right on this one was proving very hard - there were several versions of this with rather funny colours floating around, since all the zinc paint gives the floor a lot of yellow tones. Autolevels are usually best avoided, and especially in a situation where a lot of one colour is expected. I do have to credit Chris Woodrich for some additional tweaking, though (I've added that to the credit link) Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great historic value. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support has historic value and good composition. --Laitche (talk) 05:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 05:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Balles2601 (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Love it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 10:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Cappella della Madonna del Sudore (Ravenna Duomo).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2015 at 01:51:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Baroque chapel of Our Lady of Sudor, Ravenna Cathedral, Italy. Built at the expense of citizens for saving Ravenna from the plague of 1629. All by --Mile (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Could be a little bit brighter but FP anyways. --Code (talk) 05:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Too much sharpening and too much contrast in my opinion. The camera captures RAW, so better processing should be achievable. — Julian H.^✈ 07:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info Julian No contrast added, even curve is almost original. Sharpening added at amount 45%, radius 1.5 px and treshold 5. This is by any mean very minor sharpening. True its from jpeg all but at Pana or Olympus jpeg is bit different and much more useful than at others (so i often shot in jpeg). --Mile (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak support --LivioAndronico talk 11:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 09:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Description des douze Césars avec leurs figures 8-Othon.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2015 at 16:52:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by ManiacParisien - uploaded by ManiacParisien - nominated by Sdivad -- Sdivad (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sdivad (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp enough for this kind of picture. --Tremonist (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional oppose Embedded color profile: AdobeRGB. Now this is fine if you want to send it to a professional print shop, but for web use it is big problem, as many browsers and apps are not capable of interpreting this color space and may treat the colors completely random. If you have the raw, export as sRGB instead, which is the recommended color space. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Slaunger: New version uploaded with a color profile and the original colors, the previous version is oversaturated. Yann (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Yann! -- Slaunger (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing exceptional alone, but it might be worth to propose a set. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 05:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Official program - Woman suffrage procession March 3, 1913 - crop.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2015 at 21:04:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Benjamin Moran Dale, restored and uploaded by Adam Cuerden, nominated by Yann
Support Adam, I am a great fan of your work. ;oD --Yann (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support (obviously) - Thank you very much. This is one of the older ones I've always been rather happy about. Has a tiny bit of reconstruction on the left side (woman's shoulder, I believe), and I think that was some of the first I did. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 13:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent image, very good choice, celebrating an anniversary: french women voted for the first time only 70 years ago, in 1945...--Jebulon (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 19:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - One of my favourite of Adam's restorations. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:360° Flexenpass Straße Sommer 2015.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2015 at 07:42:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info 360° Panorama von der Flexenpaßstaße mit Blick auf den Ort Stuben am Arlberg c/u/n by Böhringer (talk) 07:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 07:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry,too much distortion for me --LivioAndronico talk 11:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting light/shadow contrast. Even the sign is readable, well done! --Tremonist (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like panoramas, including 360° ones, but this one is a bit too distorted for me I'm afraid. -- KTC (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I think distortion is ok for a 360° panorama, and the scene works really well. The editing of the opposite side of the valley, in the sun, isn't perfect in my eyes, but overall, it feels like a FP to me. — Julian H.^✈ 14:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, and the shadow is a negative. -- Colin (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I dislike panoramas, including 360° ones, and per Colin.--Jebulon (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well I like panoramas, and I think this is a good one. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wellenbrecher Strand Los Cristianos von Hafenmauer 2015.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2015 at 19:43:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the composition doesn't appeal to me. I feel like there's too much empty space in the water; the boat is too small and distant to balance out the rocks on the bottom right. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠
Oppose Per King. — Julian H.^✈ 13:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice blue. :) --Tremonist (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per the King. Yann (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like this colors and the perspective though a bit unbalanced, I want vanishing point just on the horizon. Maybe the vanishing point is on the horizon but its white line by the boat makes me feel it above the horizon :) --Laitche (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice color Rainbow unicorn (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King of Hearts. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 04:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Apotheosis of St. Dominic.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2015 at 22:10:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info All by LivioAndronico talk 22:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico talk 22:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some lack of sharpness in edges, but since its very long i can tolerate, especially when center is so nice. --Mile (talk) 12:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality in the center is really good. Unfortunately, the bottom quarter is not in focus and it is unsymmetrical in that the bottom is cropped more tightly than the top. — Julian H.^✈ 13:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support For Mile --Σπάρτακος (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Conditional oppose~~ No color-space metadata and no embedded color profile: Windows and Mac browsers and apps treat colors randomly. Have you been playing around in "Paint" again ? -- Slaunger (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Slaunger ,two seconds in pai....ehm Photoshop --LivioAndronico talk 19:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Livio. I have verified that your new upload has proper color space data. How about simply deleting "Paint" from your PC? -- Slaunger (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With a button--LivioAndronico talk 20:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support good job --Pudelek (talk) 14:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cables a little disturbing but very nice. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Info Demoted/Delisted to not featured per this consensus. --Cart (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pseudothemis zonata, Keitakuen, Osaka.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2015 at 22:05:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pseudothemis zonata Set

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
Info The subject is exactly the same position and the pose. c/u/n by Laitche (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitche (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 1. I've no idea ho we handle sets. May I miss any recent discussions? 2. I like the dorsal view. Wing details are wonderful. But anal appendage is a key in identifying odonata. Here it is fully OOF. It seems you keep the camera perpenticular to the branch; not to the subject. 3. Ventral view of a dragonfly is very tough. Here wings pointing to the camera obstruct most of the body parts. 4. I'm making a fair review for improving your composition. Good efforts; indeed. J e e 03:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm agree with J e e for the point 1 and 2 --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. @J e e: @Livio: I had not been here (FPC) for a while till came back, so I don't know what happened to the set nomination. What is the matter with set? --Laitche (talk) 07:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. I tried my camera perpendicular to the subject but I couldn't because I was standing on the bridge with no fence witch width is about one meter hence I could not move back and forward, and I don't like falling in a pond...

3. I wanted to nominate exactly the same pose as a set therefore the wings are unavoidable.

4. Thank you :) --Laitche (talk) 07:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. As far as I know we didn't arrive in a solution, so far. Until it is solved, it is difficult to handle promoted files. 2. It is better have a less aligned picture than you loss the camera in that beautiful water. ;) 3. Lifter or lower the camera to make an angle 30-60 degree so that you can avoid wings pointing to the lens. :) J e e 08:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Ok, I got it. Then what shloud I do, withdraw?

3. The subject was located same level height as a bridge so I was taking this photo lying on the bridge, means impossible to lower the angle 30-60 degrees unless in the water shot... --Laitche (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can wait for a few more opinion. I saw another nom by Diliff too, below. I think it (set) is not very useful unless we have a mechanism to handle it. J e e 08:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will wait for few more opinions. --Laitche (talk) 09:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the set issue, the BOT will not close correctly this as he will think that there is several alternatives. It must be closed manualy and every images tagged manualy too. Thus both images of this nomination will be promoted individually manualy (if successful) as if they have been nominated separatly. -- Christian Ferrer 09:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Christian: Yes, I did so :) --Laitche (talk) 09:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - But I didn't see necessary fp categories for individual images there. Further I didn't see any new discussion overruling that early discussion concluded as "individual images in sets are not equivalent as individual fps". Then how can we add 20+ images in a set to a fp gallery and category? We discussed several options; but I didn't see a conclusion so far. J e e 09:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm; I found the discussion; but didn't see any solution there. There is a talking about "key image". May be King of Hearts can comment. J e e 10:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would withdraw if I were you and expect the end of the discussion, however, for the first photo I would have supported--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 17:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with Livio. --Code (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Livio: @Code: Yes, I am going to withdraw. Now waiting for few more opinions. Ok, I'll think about the first photo as single nomination, thanks. --Laitche (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Laitche (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Common bluebottle, Keitakuen, Osaka.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2015 at 14:51:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info created, uploaded, nominated by Laitche (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitche (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wings a little blurred but nice shot. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Balles2601 (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think as Arion--LivioAndronico talk 19:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Flapping wings; body well focused. :) J e e 02:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Partialy unsharp, empty space on the right - but IMO for this kind of image: FP --XRay ^talk 16:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wabi Sabi --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though there's too much space on the right side. --Cayambe (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Foot US - Women French Championship - Day 2 - Ours vs Argocanes - 40.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2015 at 12:59:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created & uploaded by PierreSelim - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very suitable light for this, good fucus, flawless background and composition. — Julian H.^✈ 13:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as in QI --Kadellar (talk) 10:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not entirely sharp even in the foreground. --Tremonist (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support :)--PierreSelim (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
temporary oppose needs a better description: Names of the teams, year and place of the tournament, names of the players. --El Grafo (talk) 08:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olkhonsky District Shamanka Rock.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2015 at 09:42:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Freedom v - nominated by A.Savin --A.Savin 09:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 09:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is small posterization in left cloud, but this photo is so scenic. Красота ! --Mile (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Halos, not very sharp, may be not natural colors.--XRay ^talk 15:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 15:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversaturated, not enough sharp, a bit tilted cw. --Laitche (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm a little worried about the white edge around the cliff. Not a problem in itself, but it increases the impression that the sky has been edited quite heavily. — Julian H.^✈ 16:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Since chances seem to be low that there will be a change in editing. — Julian H.^✈ 12:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed, oversharpening halo, but stil unsharp.--Jebulon (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Visually a very good image. -- Christian Ferrer 06:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon. Kruusamägi (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Jebulon. --Tremonist (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice mix of SEAL(like the US Navy) Rainbow unicorn (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposes. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak support Yes, oveprocessed but great composition and wow. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Varanus acanthurus (Boulenger 1885).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2015 at 22:52:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice animal, but unfortunately a little unsharp in parts. --Tremonist (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thank you, Tremonist, I made a better update. Please have a look. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much better now, thank you!

Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:20080804 freight bicycle Shanghai 2383.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2015 at 14:16:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Jakub Hałun - uploaded by Jakub Hałun - nominated by Σπάρτακος -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's an exciting picture, but unfortunately it lacks sharpness in many parts. --Tremonist (talk) 12:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Duinroos (Rosa pimpinellifolia). Locatie. Nationaal Park Lauwersmeer 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2015 at 16:00:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants #Family: Rosaceae
Info Rosa pimpinellifolia. Location. Lauwersmeer National Park in the Netherlands.created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 21:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 06:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 19:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Background is a bit distracting but acceptable. --Laitche (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Nissan r390gt1 roadcar.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2015 at 16:43:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles
Info created by Satokimu - uploaded by Morio - nominated by Σπάρτακος -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info The creator has been deleted from ja Wikipedia so the author does not exist on the internet... (The translation of this page: "User:Satokimu page does not exist.". ) --Laitche (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Color space tagged as sRGB without an embedded color profile. Some browsers and apps may treat the colors randomly. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Slaunger: Color profile added. Yann (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Yann! -- Slaunger (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Problems with the contrast due to the dark colour. --Tremonist (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks nice Rainbow unicorn (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The resolution is really low for something static like this, and the front of the car is not lit very well. — Julian H.^✈ 07:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Palacio de Nymphenburg, Múnich, Alemania, 2015-07-03, DD 01-18 HDR PAN.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2015 at 19:25:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info Panoramic view of the Nymphenburg Palace, a Baroque palace in Munich, Bavaria (southern Germany). The palace is the main summer residence of the former rulers of Bavaria of the House of Wittelsbach. The palace was designed by Agostino Barelli and constructed by order of Ferdinand Maria and Henriette Adelaide of Savoy in 1664. The castle was expanded and redesigned several times until the last modifications in 1826. All by me, Poc o² 19:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 19:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nymphenburg Palace is a very large complex and it is challenging to take a photo which covers all buildings. Nonetheless the headliner should be the building and neither the pond in the front which covers a lot of space, nor the sunset. I would strongly suggest to crop much tighter at the front and at the sky (see suggestion). Although the pano would look like a typical "pano tube" it is imho a better choice for this motive. I am also unsure regarding the light - the sunset is nice, but the best light to cover all buildings from this side seem to be in the morning. Coordinates of your shooting position are missing. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tuxyso: New version with cropped water, improved perspective and adjustment of curves. I opted for not cropping the sky, though. Regarding the preference of a morning light (which I have already done), I'd probably get the feedback that it isn't anything spectacular, but ok. I also added geodata, no big surprise here. Poc o² 09:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Foreground is imho better now, but I cannot make friends with the wide crop at the top. Probably you can wait if there are comments with similar content and think about an alternative nomination. Probably it is only my very personal impression here. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some serious mistake in stiching-Whole vertical line is missing. Ghosting by ducks and peoples, part of building is covered for reconustruction, i dont think that is good idea for FP of building. --Mile (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mile: That what you noted was an editing problem, it's fixed now (see new version), no big deal. Regarding ghosting, it is very limited IMHO (through crops and edits) and I could remove it totally with further editing but to me it is a minor thing that shouldn't play a main role here. Ghosts are impossible to avoid in this scene under these circumstances. Actually the place was not crowded at all in comparison to the amount of people you usually see here. Maybe I just don't understand FP anymore and should but the place, quality and light are FP to me. Poc o² 13:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You have moving subjects all over, despite that you used ISO 100 ? What was the problem to put some 500-1000 ? I do that on my small camera without any bad effect. I am sure would benefit you more. --Mile (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~{{o}} there is a severe stitching problem, the vertikal one-pixel-line! From the top down to the bottom. --Hubertl (talk) 13:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)~~ changed to Neutral[reply]
Hubertl: as mentioned above, issue fixed! Cannot understand why a straight away oppose is used for an issue that can be so easily fixed, a comment would have been enough and 2 hours later is gone. Poc o² 13:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please, don´t force that hard, Poc! --Hubertl (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to make you aware that things that can be easily fixed should guide to a straight oppose if they can be easily fixed, only that, I didn't mean to be rude Poc o² 16:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this mood and wow for me. --Laitche (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 18:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Water is real bad thing for every stitching software. 4 stitching edges on the water are clearly visible. I've marked the the two most distracting ones. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notes Tuxyso, I believe that I have addressed all of them (or at least 4) in the last version Poc o² 20:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Balles2601 (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Polar Bear with its tongue sticking out.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2015 at 16:38:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by Christopher Michel - uploaded by User:FlickreviewR 2 and nominated (proposed by User:Russavia on irc) by -- The Photographer (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nikhil (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's an unexpectedly tough one for me. The subject certainly has lots of "wow", it is nicely framed and exposed well. At 100%, the background looks very grainy. That's unlikely to be sensor noise (ISO 100, 1/1000 sec), so I'd suspect that it's due to quite aggressive sharpening. But that's at around 36 MPix and barely visible (if at all) at screen size. The blue looks almost too blue to be true, but it seems that ice can actually look like that. And then there's quite a bit of vignetting – not sure if I like it. --El Grafo (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done @El Grafo: Thanks!, please, let me know if it is done :) --The Photographer (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Photographer: Sorry for the late reply: Now that the vignetting is gone, it looks much better from afar, but some details in the snow have been lost. Concerning the sharpening artifacts, I'm not sure if countering over-processing with even more processing is the right thing to do as you're losing information. The other voters seem OK with that though, so I guess i'm gonna stay

Neutral on this one. --El Grafo (talk) 09:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lost information is simply noise (sharpening artifacts because a bit aggressive sharpening), a non destructive noise selectively applied. On the main subject (the bear) was not applied any noise reduction filter. I respect your position neutral vote. Thank you for your comments. --The Photographer (talk) 09:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that you spared the animal from noise reduction (though I think I saw a bit of lost detail at its throat). Concerning the background, well, that's extremely difficult for me to describe. Those sharpening artifacts are different from sensor noise in that they are not simply random but based on something that was there, and even the dramatically exaggerated oversharpened data still contains a bit of that something. If you de-noise that, you will also lose a bit more of that something. Imagine what happens if you repeat that cycle a few times: sharpen → de-noise → sharpen → de-noise … --El Grafo (talk) 10:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have added the details of the throat. Yes, I agree with you, there exists some kind of information right now, for me is imperceptible, but in the future any computer software could recover and make visible details without noise. It's good to know we have a photo history, someone can always do a better job. I respect your view, but I believe that the current picture (the latest version) is considerably better than the second version, discuss which data on noise is somewhat controversial and hypothetical based on some kind of detail currently there is more than just noise, however, this is just my humble opinion. I honestly prefer never apply noise reduction unless it is absolutely necessary, you should always have a vision for the future, in the future someone can always do better, with possibly more intelligent software. In this case, I thought to apply noise reduction only in areas where the depth of field can not focus. Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Pofka (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support the new version. --Yann (talk) 09:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 12:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 08:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cold. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 08:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nisyros - Mandraki1.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2015 at 20:52:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 05:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice view. --Tremonist (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A good QI for sure, but nothing outstanding for a FP (just my taste).--Jebulon (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An argument more based on facts would be better, just my taste. --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Image lacks any wow: dull lighting and awkward composition.--Fotoriety (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow. Kruusamägi (talk) 05:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Quite usual shot. -- Pofka (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Pofka. AM (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Berdorf (LU), Werschrummschloeff -- 2015 -- 6260-4.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2015 at 09:59:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 09:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 09:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mysterious. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 11:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeNothing special for me. Sorry, D kuba (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice perspective. --Tremonist (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mysterious indeed. -- Pofka (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Double Intersection Warren Truss Bridge, Spanning Blackledge River, Colchester, New London County.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2015 at 12:31:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info created by unknow, ca.1970 - edited and uploaded by Christian Ferrer (orginal file upladed by Fæ) - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer 12:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 12:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Yann (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Too busy composition, I prefer like this. And I don't think B/W works for this photo, (maybe just for hiding the blown sky.) --Laitche (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If this is about the mechanical structure, it would be nice if the most prominent part of it, the first visible section, would be in focus. I also think that some colour might help to separate the structure from the environment here, making the whole image more readable. — Julian H.^✈ 11:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive. --Tremonist (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like an old, but sturdy bridge from that view. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hexaprotodon liberiensis Lagos Zoo Portugal (3).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2015 at 10:11:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by William Warby - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 10:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info the EXIF is corrupted, but I've requested that that be fixed. —Bruce1ee^talk 10:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Laitche has kindly fixed the EXIF, thank you. —Bruce1ee^talk 11:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Bruce1ee: My fixing way is with Photoshop, I think exiftool is better solution, Regards. --Laitche (talk) 11:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, I'll have a look at exiftool. —Bruce1ee^talk 11:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 10:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's a great image, but it suffers from quality problems, especially visible (but not only) at the water surface. --Tremonist (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nowruz Zoroastrian.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2015 at 10:51:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Ipaat - uploaded by File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske) - nominated by Alborzagros -- Alborzagros (talk) 10:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 10:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting bas-relief, good work with the light. Please add a category above. --Yann (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose interesting and well-lit, but a lot of CA. I also expected a bigger size. --Kadellar (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not good quality enough for such an easy picture (full of chromatic aberration). Too soft (noise reduction). And the subject is a restoration work for a great part. The "pole" in background is disturbing.--Jebulon (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann. ~★ pikolas ^{[[mia diskuto]]} 02:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kadellar. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann. --Tremonist (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposers. Kruusamägi (talk) 05:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rainbow unicorn (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Farshid . Talk 07:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Laitche (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kadellar. — Julian H.^✈ 19:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Raven and the First Men 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2015 at 07:48:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Xicotencatl - uploaded by Xicotencatl - nominated by Xicotencatl -- Xicotencatl (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Xicotencatl (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 11:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow and feels awkward: perhaps it's the angle the subject was taken from.--Fotoriety (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exciting object. --Tremonist (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seat of the European Central Bank and Frankfurt Skyline at dawn 20150422 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2015 at 11:53:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info c/u/n by me, -- DXR (talk) 11:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little dig in the archive. Arguably one of the more important towers, especially in these times. I think that the morning light helps to well define the edges of the tower while the shooting position stresses the physical distance to the main highrise district of Frankfurt. Admittedly not as large as other panos since the ECB tower actually requires a fairly wide angle. -- DXR (talk) 11:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great light and composition. Could be just a tiny little bit brighter. --Code (talk) 12:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you may be right here, I always struggle with the exact choice of brightness, so if more people agree, I can brighten it by 0,2 EV or so. --DXR (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree with Code with the sole exception of the brightness issue that I don't feel a necessity here. --Tremonist (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. DXR, your EXIF says "CC-BY-SA" but ideally you should mention the version number, so people know actually what licence is needed. Have a look at Jeffrey Friedl's Creative Commons plug-in for Lightroom and see File:St Paul's Cathedral - Lantern and Ball and Cross.jpg for an example of an image with more CC EXIF information. (I've just noticed some of my recent uploads didn't use it, so must investigate why) -- Colin (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the hint. To be honest, the info is currently added directly to each image in my camera, but I will look into the plug-in you linked, that sounds quite useful. --DXR (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very good --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice urban dawn shot. ⇔ Laitche (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AHhahhah Laitche --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Laitche (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice atmosphere. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 04:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. The plane trails also help in the composition. --Yann (talk) 09:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. --Famberhorst (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 12:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Attractive. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 08:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hey, it's not only about size ok ? ;) - Benh (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Chateau Ussé.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2015 at 06:22:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info created by Hank42 - uploaded by Hank42 - nominated by Sinuhe20 -- Sinuhe20 (talk) 06:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sinuhe20 (talk) 06:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Underexposed, bad processing (artifacts and lack of details, especially in sky), CA. Also not a particularly good direction of light for the subject. --DXR (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a nice place, but the picture has obvious problems. --Tremonist (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info The photo should be renamed because it doesn't show the Château d'Ussé but the Château de Chaumont-sur-Loire. -- Sir Gawain (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dark, shadows, etc. -- Pofka (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:150524 Konzerthaus Berlin (Nacht) - clone.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2015 at 18:58:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info The concert hall is a central building on the Gendarmenmarkt in Berlin. The classical building is one of the major works of the architect Karl Friedrich Schinkel. It was opened in 1821 as the Royal Playhouse and was from 1919 to 1945 Prussian State Theatre. In 1994, it was named "Konzerthaus Berlin". Created by Code - retouched and uploaded by Laitche - nominated by Code -- Code (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Code (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome! --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Livio. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice HDRi _{and retouching.} --Laitche (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Enchanting. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 08:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I would like a tighter crop at the top. Also the outlining of the statues doesn't look good (rough edges). I'd guess that defringing was used with to much power, should be adjusted a bit to include less blue tones (but I guess this comment comes a bit late ;-) ) --DXR (talk) 09:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Beautiful, but strange edges. Also perhaps NR is a bit too strong, but it doesn't really affect the picture. - Benh (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Männitüved Põrguhavva soos.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2015 at 13:48:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info all by Kruusamägi (talk) 13:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 13:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not really sure about the choise of DOF. IMHO, is not a good idea to have out of focus obgects in the foreground. --C messier (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Foreground bokeh does not work in this case for me. --Laitche (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Leaving some object in the foreground unsharp, lining the image on both sides, getting some smaller trunks in the middle to focus attention, etc etc. I did so to get an image, that should (in my opinion) draw the viewer into the photo. I didn't shoot it with FP in mind, but wanted to test what would you about it. Kruusamägi (talk) 03:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Color space tagged as sRGB, without an embedded color profile Browsers and apps may treat the colors randomly. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support very graphic, almost abstract --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, it doesn't work too well for me. It's interesting, but the amount of space that is obstructed by the out-of-focus dark trunks is too high in my opinion. I would really like to see the area behind them, which looks much more interesting, but I can only catch those small sections of it, with significant detail lost to noise. — Julian H.^✈ 11:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Slaunger: Color profile added. Yann (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Yann! -- Slaunger (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Laitche. --Tremonist (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Laitche. -- Pofka (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Perspective La Cambe cemetery Calvados.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2015 at 15:54:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info al by me -- Jebulon (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support German World War II (D-Day and Battle of Normandy) cemetery at La Cambe, Calvados, Normandy, France.-- Jebulon (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support because of noise reduction (or whatever it is that steals sharpness). --Kadellar (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Is sharpness stolen ?--Jebulon (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if we should begin a language discussion! Sharpness is lost, but it could be because of NR, a smooth stealer. --Kadellar (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The crop is suboptimal, with markers chopped off on the sides and the top cut off at a rather awkward place. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- crop suboptimal ? I'm sorry I don't understand. This critique is far too much complicated for this kind of picture, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neither light, nor composition nor quality reaches imho FP bar. More concrete: The cropped crosses at the right are unfortunate, DoF is critical and the colors look dull. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Right theme and idea, poor execution. I would have done something closer than this #REDIRECT[[10]], but would have altered the angle a bit. File:Perspective La Cambe cemetery Calvados edit.jpg--Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't know what kind of composition would have been needed. In my opinion, the crosses speak for themselves. --Tremonist (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Crop. -- Pofka (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Annika Beck 2, 2015 Wimbledon Qualifying - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2015 at 23:06:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice action scene. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's a nice sport image! --Yann (talk) 08:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little too much ... flab. But beautiful composition--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 11:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Crop's a tiny little bit tight for my taste, but apart from that: Holy cow! Great moment, great expression on her face, better quality I'd dared to ask for in an action shot like this, and on top of all that you perfectly nailed the focus. --El Grafo (talk) 11:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is it possible to clone out the little dark thing at top right? -- Christian Ferrer 06:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support but per Christian --DXR (talk) 09:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, will clone it out. Can probably apply some noise reduction on the background too. Diliff (talk) 09:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. I've also made a few other minor changes as per the upload comments. Diliff (talk) 09:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 10:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:Fuente Wittelsbacher, Plaza Lenbach, Múnich, Alemania, 2015-07-04, DD 01-03 HDR.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2015 at 21:38:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info The Wittelsbacher foutain is a monumental fountain at the north border of Munich downtown (Germany). The fountain was built between 1893 and 1895 following drawings of the sculptor Adolf von Hildebrand. The subject of the 25-long-basin is the forces of the water element with the blessing force on the left hand and of the allegory of the destruction on the right. All by me, Poc o² 21:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 21:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice subject. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nicely taken, although I would have liked to see a higher vantage point I think. Diliff (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support The sky doesn't fully convince me - the fountain however does --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support despite poor resolution. --Kadellar (talk) 12:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice - Benh (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Set design by Philippe Chaperon for Act4 sc2 of Aida by Verdi 1871 Cairo.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2015 at 03:27:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media
Info created by Philippe Chaperon - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The border is very definitely part of the original artwork, and should not be cropped (or, at least, if it's desirable to crop for a wiki that hasn't imported en:Template:CSS image crop yet, it needs to be a new file.) Also, I did hesitate between restoration and leaving the damage, but, in the end, thought the damage was distracting from the primary purpose. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting, good work. Yann (talk) 09:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 11:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support But what happened to the first file in the file history ?--Jebulon (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jebulon: It's a different Aida image I'm working on, but am slightly concerned about itas a Commons image - as opposed to en-wiki - as I can't find details of the artist, partially due to a damaged signature. See en:File:Giuseppe Verdi, c. 1872 Aida vocal score cover - Restoration.jpg I think it's C. Weidenmüller? Can't find details, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 14:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zámek Rájec nad Svitavou (Schloss Raitz).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2015 at 10:11:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 10:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 10:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I think given the symmetry of everything in the photo, standing slightly off-center for this photo is not ideal. I also find the scaffolding/tarp to be quite visually distracting, especially because the strong colours don't fit in there. — Julian H.^✈ 11:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good and nice --LivioAndronico talk 15:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Julian Herzog. And too many useless empty foreground.--Jebulon (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Laitche (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I guess the rule of thirds applies here. :) --Tremonist (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Two thirds of nothing, one third useful. Yes, the rule of third applies. No discussion about religious things...--Jebulon (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - --Tremonist (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Julian. -- Pofka (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arabs Baths of Alhama de Granada in Andalusia, Spain.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2015 at 16:01:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by SuperCar-RoadTrip.fr - uploaded and nominated by -- The Photographer (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm afraid they are not "roman", but arabs (end of the almohade era, and beginning of the nazari). See here. Thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support even if Arabian. :) --Tremonist (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice place. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ The lights are a little bit disturbing (not a problem) ~~and there are CAs (please see my note)~~. --XRay ^talk 16:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak

Support --XRay ^talk 03:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Very strong green CA in the bottom left corner, weaker CA in other areas. The crop through the text is not ideal. Neutral — Julian H.^✈ 16:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @XRay: and @Julian Herzog: , I think that its

Done --The Photographer (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMO there is a lot of green at the lights now. --XRay ^talk 18:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@XRay: ,

Done thanks again :D. Please, let me know if its ok --The Photographer (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much better. Something strange happened with the lights indeed. — Julian H.^✈ 18:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Julian Herzog: , What exactly ?, maybe its fixed? ^_^ --The Photographer (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's fixed. Nice. — Julian H.^✈ 20:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kos - Sonnenuntergang bei Marmari2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2015 at 20:48:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Natural_phenomena#Sun
Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 06:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know, "all sunsets are blablabla..." - but I really like this one! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose YAFS. All sunsets... etc. Posterized. Kleuske (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

incomprehensible arguments, there is no posterization --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If all sunsets don't have wow, no sunset is FP. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some users seem indeed to follow this airless and facile argument. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the FP guide, "ALMOST all sunsets...". 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose All sunsets ... sorry, no FP for me too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can explain the difference between sunsets and corny foggy fjordviews? --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can, because this isn't never a fjord. This is a lake, some rocks and in the background a glacier. File:Kopfschuettel.gif. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to delight in the role of the fool. The question is not answered. Maybe you can explain the difference between sunsets and corny foggy lake view with surrounding rocks and a glacier looking similar to a fjord? --Wladyslaw (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn, yaaawn, yaaaaawn ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it was already very clear --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The clouds on the mountains. And my vote: Neutral Beatiful scene but composition should be bigger for a FP of a sunset. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the whole day there was no clouds. There are no clouds, you seem to look at a different picture than this candidature. And the composition is nice to me with the three strongly illuminated surfer sails. If you don't like this, I respect it, but I don't think this is a ordinary sunset image. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The clouds on the mountains is your question answer to Alchemist-hp. ;) 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The sun looks very diffused. --Tremonist (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of view do you expect for such a strong source of light? --Wladyslaw (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It just looks kind of strange. But probably, this was to be expected. :) --Tremonist (talk) 13:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Interesting sunset Rainbow unicorn (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Only because of the color space issue. But it really is a sunset which stands out, and would be a definitive support from me. - Benh (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peace Pagoda, Ampara 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2015 at 14:51:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created, uploaded by and nominated by L Manju -- L Manju (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- L Manju (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Slightly tilted, too many shadows, resolution could be higher. Besides that, the building looks nice. --Tremonist (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp; poor level of details; excessively noisy sky full of strange digital artifacts. But yes the building looks nice. dllu (t,c) 18:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above plus needs perspective correction. --Laitche (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sant'Andrea al Quirinale - Dome.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2015 at 10:48:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Dizzy picture! (Arion, Pofka and Livio have crazy signatures!!!!) 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are the colours of my city --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Code (talk) 05:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bernini is ramarquable name. --Mile (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 16:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Info Demoted/Delisted to not featured per this consensus. --Cart (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cabane des Diablerets04 2014-09-20.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2015 at 14:45:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created, uploaded and nominated by KlausFoehl -- KlausFoehl (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator -- KlausFoehl (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It looks really windy. :) I like the mood... --Tremonist (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Tremonist. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 04:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perhaps a tad oversharpened, but not enough for me to care. Daniel Case (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Pedro II of Brazil - Brady-Handy.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2015 at 23:07:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by Library of Congress - uploaded by Davepape - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice picture of a important person for the history of Brazil. @Yann: It's good for you too? -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Two photographers? Mathew Brady and Levin Corbin Handy? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @ArionEstar: Basically, which negatives belonged to which of the two partners got mixed up a bit at some point, so a lot of these are "we know it's one of these" (although, even then, it might be one of their employees). Luckily, the copyright isn't dependant on the knowledge. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality is OK for that time. Good restoration. I fixed the license. It would be nice to know more about the author... Yann (talk) 08:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 13:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very historical and good restoration. --Laitche (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 19:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info I removed the left and right bad borders. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose I think the left border could be restored relatively easily - all the basic information is there, it just needs a little clonestamping - and the crop looks weird with it removed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Adam Cuerden: Could you fix? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - - @ArionEstar: Working n it, but not happy yet. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @ArionEstar: ...Kind of hesitant to touch Pedro II things, but I guess I could... Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In my opinion, the restoration could be better done, especially regarding the background. Per Adam Cuerden.--Jebulon (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — --Hafspajen (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 09:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Alexandre Charles Lecocq - Giuseppe Verdi - La forza del destino.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2015 at 13:34:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Alexandre Charles Lecocq - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info This one was an interesting restoration, mainly removing the large stamp. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 11:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 17:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Love it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Black lory (Chalcopsitta atra), Gembira Loka Zoo, Yogyakarta 2015-03-15 03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2015 at 23:47:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by Crisco 1492 - uploaded by Crisco 1492 - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 23:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 23:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ... and again birds ... ;-) For me: well done! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 19:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Thanks for the nomination, Pine! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice picture Charles (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — --Hafspajen (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 16:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 10:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dusky lory (Pseudeos fuscata), Gembira Loka Zoo, Yogyakarta, 2015-03-15 03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2015 at 23:48:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by Crisco 1492 - uploaded by Crisco 1492 - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 23:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 23:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ... a bird ... ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 19:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Thanks for the nomination, Pine! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The tail is a little out-of-focus, but that's ok here, the rest is nice and sharp. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — --Hafspajen (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 16:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 10:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Curcuma longa roots.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2015 at 08:50:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info created by LivingShadow - uploaded by LivingShadow - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 08:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 08:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support perfect for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work, high EV. Yann (talk) 11:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you please add an sRGB tag and colour profile to the image. Without these, the colours are not consistently treated by varied web browsers and devices. -- Colin (talk) 12:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Laitche (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done for me. --Laitche (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. --Mile (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 09:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 17:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Too OOF for me. The cut edges look like glass; powders are not much in focus. I don't expect much from a stalk of just five images in this angle of view. Not an ideal/fresh specimen too. In fact, turmeric is cut this way. May be I'm biased as it is a very common subject as part of our daily dishes. Jee 02:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: cut: I don't find it unreasonable that different people in different regions cut the rhizome a different way. Google Images gives multiple images of them being cut width-wise, not lengthwise. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hope this helps you to prepare the powder yourself. :) The "cut" is important as they will not dry otherwise. The google search is a clear example to illustrate how illiterate or unwilling to learn from traditional farmers, our photographers are. J e e 03:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Although it is not possible to prepare powder from a fresh and juicy root, we can make the paste and use in curries. And how we cut may not be important as we use electric tools than traditional stones nowadays. So striking off my oppose. J e e 05:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --‍‍‍‍‍‍Farshid . Talk 09:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per my nomination on the English Wikipedia. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 16:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support High educational value, technically well done. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Food photographs nominated here are so often deficient that I can overlook the focus problems on the powder (in fact, to my eye they're more in focus than not). Daniel Case (talk) 03:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food and drink

File:Französischer Dom, Gendarmenmarkt, Berlin (Blaue Stunde).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2015 at 07:32:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info The French Cathedral on the Gendarmenmarkt in Berlin-Mitte at dusk. HDR made of five exposures (1,6s; 3,2s; 6s; 13s; 25s; f/8, ISO 320). All by me. -- Code (talk) 07:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Code (talk) 07:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support you might want to reduce saturation a bit, though --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with Martin. I don't think that rich blue was apparent to the eye and, even if you haven't boosted saturation, the camera will boost the blueness because of the longer exposures. -- Colin (talk) 12:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: @Martin Falbisoner: Thank you for your helpful comments. You are right, it didn't look that blue in reality. I reduced both the blue and the overall saturation a little bit (-10/-4) and made some other small adjustments like reducing the dynamic (-5 and increasing the blue luminance (+10)). I hope you like it better now. --Code (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much better now! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sure better --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 17:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support wonder about the NR again, but the lighting of the building is fantastic. Nice timing as well. - Benh (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sky is a bit bright but acceptable. --Laitche (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 16:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp details and crisp color. Daniel Case (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Crimea South Coast 04-14 img03 Massandra Palace.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2015 at 16:56:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info created by A.Savin - uploaded by A.Savin - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer 16:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 16:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pity that such beauty is located in such place... -- Pofka (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with this place, imo. --A.Savin 09:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Pofka is saying about the Crimean crisis. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the right I think it's leaning in a bit. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected it a bit. --A.Savin 09:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful place in Crimea. --Laitche (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 09:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could be more space around, but still nice.--Mile (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support That (kind of) ugly brown water works well with the color of the building ;-) --El Grafo (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 03:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sulphur Springs June 2015 02 (Hopkins County Courthouse).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2015 at 17:02:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created and uploaded by Michael Barera - nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs perspective correction. But I don't think it can be FP anyways - there is not enough space at the top (and too much at the bottom) and the light is not favourable. But the subject is very nice. Sorry. --Code (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Code. --Tremonist (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great angle and symmetry but blown sky over building. Daniel Case (talk) 03:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 03:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:From Temple of Olympian Zeus to Lycabetus Athens Greece.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2015 at 21:22:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support In Athens, Greece, view of Temple of Olympian Zeus, with Lycabettus hill in background -- Jebulon (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great view! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great view, but the lighting could be better. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for support. Any clue for an improvement ?--Jebulon (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I would explore different times of day in order to see how the light interacts with the columns, bringing out more texture. I like early morning or late afternoon light. I think that the point from where you took the picture works very well and is different from what is available. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah ok, I understand. I'll watch at your next nominations very carefuly for examples to follow.--Jebulon (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Dear Jebulon, There is a difference between tourist snapshots and serious photography. A tourist snaps a picture that may or may not be taken under ideal conditions, while a serious photographer seeks out the best time of day in order to capture the best light. Photography, from the Greek roots, comes from photo=light and graphos=drawing… painting with light. So, taking into account not only the subject matter, the columns in this case, is not the only consideration. The type of lighting is extremely important also. One must understand the concept of directional lighting and use it when given the chance. This may mean that perhaps your picture, while nicely composed and placed in a certain context, may not be the best image obtainable. Granted, many times one cannot control the quality of light when one is in front of the subject, but also many times one cann go back and stalk the light. In this case, considering the place where you took the picture, and if you are already there, it may pay off to return and look for better lighting. Many times one has to make do with what is on hand, but I think that this is a case where a return visit would be warranted. You don´t have to wait for my future nominations to illustrate this point, for you may look as examples already here and posted below. Directional lighting is used to bring out texture and volume in subjects, and in my opinion is much better and creates better photographs in general.
      - Examples of directional light.
        [[11]], #[[12]], #[[13]], #[[14]], #[[15]], #[[16]], #[[17]], #[[18]], #[[19]]
      - Regards --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you, my dear "Serious photographer". Thanks for the lesson of ancient greek language too. The fact is that I learnt ancient greek during five years, but yes, it was a long time ago, so a "refreshment" of my knowledge is always welcome...--Jebulon (talk) 10:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I guess you mean this as "directional light" ? Artistic for sure, but not always very illustrative neither descriptive, and therefore suitable for an encyclopedy media repository as "Commons" is for me. One can submit FPC not only in early morning neither in evening "blue hour"... My poor opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 10:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        My dear “Ancient Greek scholar Jebulon,” nobody said that either early morning nor late afternoon light is a requirement for FPC. For any particular subject it could be any time, any light, but there will always be one that will be special to the subject. My humble opinion is that directional light, or its “artistic” characteristic most often, not always, will make a better picture in a way as to enhance its educational value. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak support Per Tomascastelazo--LivioAndronico talk 09:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good. I wasn't aware of this viewpoint so far, --A.Savin 20:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Öhm... Just looked at the coords and they are definitely wrong. --A.Savin 20:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aw ! Thanks ! Obviously, it is not Utah Beach ! I'll correct soon. The view is from the roof/terrace of the "Royal Olympic Hotel"--Jebulon (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Royal Olympic Hotel"? Jebulon is rich guys....I joke

--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Corrected, now. Good coordinates. Sorry again.--Jebulon (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Athens to Athens" (Joe Bonamassa). --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 08:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose Won't change anything but it's harsh, flat, and obviously taken mid day. Just don't like it (and agree with most of Tomascastelazo's points). Interesting attempt composition wise. - Benh (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Picture taken at 16h00 greek time. See shadows of columns.--Jebulon (talk) 07:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - it's about 2h30 after zenith, not so good IMO (not that taking photo is forbidden at that time, but here it renders as I said). - Benh (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Dome of Santa Maria di Loreto (Rome).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2015 at 11:43:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 11:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 11:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice! --Pudelek (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful and well executed but I think you should add a better file description. What is it? Where is it? Who painted it? This would increase the educational value of your picture. --Code (talk) 05:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. More info please. Yann (talk) 08:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thanks --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 16:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support with a caveat Having taken a similar FP, I appreciate this when this well-done. But ... do you think you could make the background transparent? The white would be really distracting when that's not the page background. Daniel Case (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Daniel I cannot load the PNG (only format to remove the background) if I already loaded in jpg .... do not know why--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How do I evaluate the composition with this... --Laitche (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With your eyes? --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

★_★ --Laitche (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 15:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Info Demoted/Delisted to not featured per this consensus. --Cart (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bolma persica 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2015 at 16:26:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely work --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 16:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 16:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 06:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ehrenstetten - Ölbergkapelle6.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2015 at 21:42:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful scenery, even though a little misty. I like the mood to which also light and shadow contribute here. --Tremonist (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful lighting and mood. Tiny stitching issue on the bench if you want to look at it. BTW I can see that you fix the color space issue on your pipeline. That's nice ! - Benh (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice panorama view. --Laitche (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Laitche. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 04:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Love it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info The southward view shows the Black Forrest and the Rhine Valley with the Markgräfler region. Typical for this region are the vineyards. On the left side we see the Blauen (1164 m) and the castle ruine of Staufen on top of the cone-shaped hill (both annotated now). --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ----6AND5 (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Hafspajen (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 06:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:KotaKinabalu Sabah TuguPahlawan-08.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2015 at 03:55:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Tugu Pahlawan (Monument of the Heroes) in Kota Kinabalu, Sabah. Dedicated to immortalize the warriors of the Sabah State.

Info all by -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 03:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 03:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great lighting and colors. Wish it could be a bit sharper though. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support per King. --Tremonist (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Per others. -- Pofka (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I raised sharpness a little bit. However, for a ISO 200, taken with Sony alpha 700 in 2012, it is probably not possible, to expect more. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mellow and smooth. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 06:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Pofka and KoH. Daniel Case (talk) 02:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 11:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 06:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Losiny Ostrov 2009-09-22.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2015 at 20:07:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Nikiforovvb - nominated by A.Savin --A.Savin 20:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 20:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Scenic scene Rainbow unicorn (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent light and composition. --Laitche (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice trees. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please add a description in another language. I would support then. --Code (talk) 05:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --A.Savin 10:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thank you. --Code (talk) 04:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 08:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 07:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support good light. --Kadellar (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Special autumn mood. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 08:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like a painting --The Photographer (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per The Photographer. Daniel Case (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alt version[edit]

Info I found some problems with white balance and low exposure, I made some changes and put in this alternate version. I hope you like. --The Photographer (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to @The Photographer: I prefer that you overwrite this version. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 07:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ArionEstar: I don't agree, the new version is too bright :) --Laitche (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Overwrite is not a good practice. I have fixed the problem of overexposure, I usually tend to use low brightness in my monitor, that do not damage my eyes and creates a more sensible vision in the dark. --The Photographer (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not an improvement. Also the description on the page does not list all the changes that have been applied to the original, the most egregious of which is the heavy noise reduction that has removed all fine detail from the image. -- Colin (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion, however, subjetive. In the digital development process colors are altered, it would have to observe the raw file to make such a judgment --The Photographer (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 06:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Losiny Ostrov 2009-09-22.jpg

File:Տերևներ.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2015 at 15:32:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by User:6AND5 - uploaded by User:6AND5 - nominated by User:6AND5 -- 6AND5 (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 6AND5 (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but no wow. "All autumnal tints are ･････" . --Laitche (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Laitche. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good, but per Laitche. --Tremonist (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mirror image sunrise on Padarn lake (14283968153).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2015 at 06:46:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Llyn Padarn sunrise

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by ohefin - uploaded by Sovereign Sentinel - nominated by Sovereign Sentinel -- Sovereign Sentinel (talk) 06:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sovereign Sentinel (talk) 06:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry,Tourist shot ...too much overprocessed and some alone --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a stunning motive, but bad quality and noisy. -- -donald- (talk) 09:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition and the light is very good, the rest is no good, pity. --Laitche (talk) 11:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Tremonist (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per donald. It's so tragic to see a shot you initially can't get the edit window open fast enough to !vote "Overwhelming support" turn out, upon closer inspection, to be of value only if its goal was to show how you can make a great DSLR shot look like it was taken with a late-2000s digital P/S. (Never thought I'd have occasion to use that one here). Daniel Case (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: No chance that it can be FP. Yann (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2015 (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:Colobus guereza Lagos Zoo Portugal.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2015 at 09:54:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by William Warby - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 09:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 09:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice portrait. :) --Tremonist (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really good. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 06:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unfortunately blown highlights... any chance to fix that? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think Martin means background. --Laitche (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- that's correct --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Its not easy to have black animal, blown areas are often problem, but here is not such huge issue. --Mile (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great portrait! --Halavar (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Blown background doesn't matter to me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blown highlights not something you notice here unless you go looking for them; left eye (viewer's right) is a little noisy but not enough to matter. Daniel Case (talk) 02:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Comet on 7 July 2015 NavCam.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2015 at 06:34:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
Info created by The European Space Agency robot Rosetta- uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support While I realise that the 1024x1024 resolution is less than usual for Features Pictures, I believe that "strong mitigating reasons" clearly apply in this case: we are limited by the performances that a space-born instrument can provide. I see this image as featuring a striking composition, with the sun rays caught in gas jets providing not only an appealing poetic touch, but also a useful backdrop over which the full silhouette of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko can be read. The presence of shadows and lightened areas is also useful both to herald the shape of the body, but also to show the lightening conditions to which the comet is exposed. Overall, an image combining rare esthetic and didactic qualities, and a fine example of an international organisation publishing documents under a Free licence. -- Rama (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see how this can be FP. We already have File:Comet 67P on 19 September 2014 NavCam mosaic.jpg, much bigger. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and bigger is better? these are different images: angle of view, composition, content --93.144.76.103 04:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For above --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 15:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann. --Tremonist (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Darius In Parse.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2015 at 07:32:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by درفش کاویانی - uploaded by درفش کاویانی - nominated by Far-gh -- Farshid . Talk 07:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Farshid . Talk 07:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well depicted, as far as I can see. --Tremonist (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Those cropped hands are simply too distracting. I no longer oppose; however, surely this relief has other figures near the main subject?! Some proper context would definitely get my support vote.--Fotoriety (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Fotoriety: Disturbing hands cropped. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Great picture + High Quality Alborzagros (talk) 06:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are you sure this is the right white balance? It looks wrong, compared to the original picture. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reguyla (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Heavens Above Her.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2015 at 08:01:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
Info created by Ian Norman - uploaded and nominated by Benh (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This picture took my breath away. It has a fantastic mood, beautiful composition, and is a technical achievement (it's a mosaic hence the size, and nothing beats a Sony for low light photography to start with). A big wow in my opinion. Author was kind enough to change its license to a CC-by-SA on request, which I believe is remarkable for such a picture. -- Benh (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure! Yann (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Nice composition,bad quality --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Livio, I can understand you find it noisy. At 12800, it won't be otherwise. But let me try to demonstrate the mitigating reasons. Shooting milky ways isn't as easy as shooting a daylight landscape or a church interior. Spotting one is hard enough, and when you see one, you realise it's pretty faint in the sky (though definitely noticeable). If I use setting like ISO 100 and even with large aperture such as f/2.0, it would take me a few minutes to get something this bright. But earth rotates, and I'd end up with trails. I think advanced astronomers use motors so their cameras follow the earth rotation ; but if you do so, landscape moves and you can't get the beautiful composition as on this candidate. Shooting milky ways requires short exposure times. Getting something this large shortens them even further (because it takes shorter to "move over more than a pixel"). Even if I'm not clear in my explanations, this picture is still 60 megapixels (!), leaves room for downscaling, and probably renders as good as many FP when printed at the same size. In short : this picture is close to state of the art from a technical point of view, when it comes to shooting milky ways. I bet it's hard to find a better one quality wise, (and especially under such a license). - Benh (talk) 12:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak support Ok Benh you convinced me, more than anything convinced me that the resolution is actually great. I with my telescope use a motor drive but probably the figure of the girl don't would be clear, however ok.--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I did ;) the point really is that we can't do much better than this on this kind of topic, technically speaking, so it shouldn't be a reason for oppose IMO (maybe with some clever stacking to reduce noise and even more clever stitching... but that would become insane). Of course, anyone is free to dislike milky ways, composition, the light pollution etc. - Benh (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the composition is excellent --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 15:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak support per Livio. --Tremonist (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great as long as you don't look at it at full size. But I see the mitigation reasons as pointed out by Benh. --Code (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great idea! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unbelievable shot. --Laitche (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 07:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I dont care the quality because the composition is simply overwhelming. --The Photographer (talk) 09:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per The Photographer and Benh --Llez (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 16:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per others. Daniel Case (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is where pixel peeping ends... Great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So true. My records don't speak for me, and I still like a good sharp picture, but I've also come to despise pixel peeping... - Benh (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:St Etheldreda's Church Interior, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2015 at 10:57:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

St Etheldreda's Church Interior Set
The interior of St Etheldreda's Church looking east to the altar
The interior of St Etheldreda's Church looking west to the organ and entrance

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff. This will be a complicated nomination. I want to replace an existing FP (my previous Featured Picture of the interior) with these two images as a set. So it is a delist and replace nomination, replacing one image with two images! -- Diliff (talk) 10:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 10:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Jebulon, the first image is a re-shoot of the image that you had previously commented on, and said that the 'benches' were not straight. Well, I took the photo again and they have the same tilts. I'm sure it's the way they are in reality. ;-) I don't think I could make the same 'mistake' twice. Diliff (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really great, Diliff, congratulations! --Tremonist (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tend to oppose, because the proportions between the two pictures look really different, it is disturbing for a set. Any comment ?--Jebulon (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not really sure what you mean. The first image was not taken at the same time as the second, but they have a similar angle of view. The second one is not quite as wide as the first, horizontally, but apart from that they are equivalent views from opposite ends of the church. They are symmetrical on the vertical axis, with the horizon at the same point. Do you think they have to be perfectly symmetrical with each other? The chosen framing depends on the composition. What works for one photo won't always work for the other. If the second image was wider like the first, it would show half of the stained glass windows, and that is something that was criticised in the previous nomination (someone suggested that the windows be cropped out). As they say, damned if you do, damned if you don't! ;-) Diliff (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a set. --Laitche (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support especially for the first...also I don't understand the reason of 2 pics...--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason for two pics is that they show opposite ends of the church for a more complete understanding of the space. I also took a 360x180 panorama of it but as we can't display them properly in Commons yet (although there is some news that it will be available very soon), this is the best choice for now. Diliff (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It becomes complicated. I block the tourists in Rome .... if I ask their to move,they kill me .....--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway the panorama is great!--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Not sure what you mean about the tourists, I didn't say anything about them! Although actually there were some visitors here in the church too. I didn't ask them to move, I just waited patiently until they left. :-) Diliff (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question No idea how to handle sets here? Do we already settled this matter? Jee 12:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Jee, I'm not sure, but there was a lot of discussion on how we agreed they could be submitted now so I thought we had a process. And I remember seeing some sets nominated and featured a few months ago, but I can't recall what they were now. I suppose they just need to be treated as individual images. Ideally we should have a template that identifies it as part of the set though, rather than being only a featured picture. Diliff (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I checked one nom as Laitche mentioned it in his set nom. I didn't see any picture included in chronological gallery. all four images are added in subject gallery. Nowhere the word "set" is mentioned. I don't think people have an understanding of the fp system. It not just about getting a {{Assessments}} on their works. All the galleries and categories need to be properly maintained. Two days ago, I just check the current chronological gallery. It was not updated even though day 17 was passed after June. :( Jee 14:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - And this one also has passed as a set. --Laitche (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is also not in chronological gallery. BTW, I'm no way against sets. But we need a formal procedure and need to mentioned in Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished for uniformity. J e e 14:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Why don't we add "featured=s" to {{Assessments}} and say in this page that sets must need "Manual procedure", meanwhile bot adapt the sets. --Laitche (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        May be KTC can help as he is now co-in-charge of the fpc bot. J e e 15:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        That's a good idea, KTC please... --Laitche (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cathédrale Condom Choeur BLS.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2015 at 19:41:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info inspired by Diliff, created, uploaded and nominated by Benh (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wouldn't have nominated it but think it's good enough to make a reference to David's superb work ;) -- Benh (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well inspired... --Laitche (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Code (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I saw it already when you added it to your page. Excellent, easily an equal of my own interiors. I hadn't heard of this cathedral before. Interesting name... ;-) Diliff (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

surprised no one has come up with that joke before you. A nice aged lady, who kindly gave me some explanations about that cathedral, was very shocked when I told her what it meant in French! That cathedral isn't the most famous I know but it's in the middle of busy parts of en:Camino de Santiago paths. I only visited it because I had time after I got my photo next to the city's sign (My only motivation for visiting the city... really!). - Benh (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Great, but slightly tilted ccw (visible at the horizontal lines, e.g. the altar) --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree, there's a slight tilt. This is a fantastic image, however. Love it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did look at it, but it's not this simple. Not everything is horizontal or vertical where it should. Construction weren't this precise then I guess. But I'll look at it again tonight. - Benh (talk) 06:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's really difficult to get these wide angle interior panoramas exactly right. Being off-centre by just a few centimetres is often enough to make things look a bit distorted or with symmetrical objects on either side of the frame looking quite significantly misaligned. Likewise, if the supposedly symmetrical object isn't actually completely symmetrical, the wide angle of view will exaggerate it. Diliff (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the (slight) ccw tilt is there. Will try to fix, but need to get all my sources pictures back, develop them to TIFF again (180 pictures !) and then stitch the panorama. Will take me more than a few hours for sure. - Benh (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 16:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. As somebody who has tried to follow the Diliff process, I have to say that I couldn't have told a difference to the original. Did you also use a 50mm? --DXR (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I used my venerable 17-55mm at tele. Bulkier than a prime :) (but less lenses to carry !). I think what separates Diliff's church interiors from the crowd are the interesting compositional choices and especially the wide angle used. Just wide enough to fill in your vision, but not as much as to overwhelm you. This is what I tried to replicate above all. I had a second body, a Fuji X with a 12mm mounted on it to preview how it renders (but went a bit wider than what I saw on screen). - Benh (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes that makes a lot of sense. Looking at the amount of detail you got, I really need to start to worry less about close DOF and move from my 35 to the 50... Shooting this kind of image with an APS-C sensor sounds like a lot of work, though! --DXR (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never found DOF was an issue (but can't make calculation to prove my claim). If you look at it that way, I'm actually at 88mm (35mm equiv.). So I probably shot more pictures to cover the same FOV, hence the amount of details... and hence the additional computing power needed. Thankfully most processing is automated, with little to fix manually on this kind of subjects. - Benh (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DoF can be a problem. Especially for full frame cameras. At 50mm, I need to use f/13 with the hyperfocal distance to get focus from about 1.5 metres to infinity, and thats with some downsampling.. DoF would be even smaller at 100%, and sometimes the background is slightly out of focus, but not that noticeably when the image is downsampled a bit. As with my recent photo taken with my 85mm lens at f/16, even that wasn't sufficient, although I didn't get the hyperfocal distance quite right I think, so DoF wasn't maximised. Also Benh, your 17-55mm lens probably not actually smaller than the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 lens I use! ;-) Mine weighs 200 grams more anyway. Diliff (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes might be easier with an APS-C... but I'll have to try to make calculation to see real equivalences (or google for someone who has done it, because I forgot most of my physics and math). That photo you showed me (and which you took the same day, coincidentally ;) ) is pretty amazing technically speaking... And to come back to the topic : DOF is an issue, but not really in most cases. Yours is pretty extreme, and I really don't mind that a few columns or seats are a bit blurred. Having them sharp doesn't really bring anything to the scene anyways. I'd even go as far as to say that blurriness bring a bit of sense of depth. - Benh (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow!! --Kadellar (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 20:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Teatro juarez columns guanajuato.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2015 at 20:13:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Photographic example of texture and volume as a result of directional lighting. All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support but maybe better if colorful. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the study of these forms and lighting, which is focused by the use of b&w to remove elements that aren't important (colour). We should have more photos that concentrate on aspects of things, rather than trying to photograph the whole, in full detail or colour. -- Colin (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 16:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support some creativity at least.--Mile (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Colin. --Code (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good example of my basic disagreement with the author : maybe a good picture for a photo magazine, but not for "Commons", for many reasons. ~~Maybe the pedestal of the columns should be horizontal ?~~(perspective). I don't oppose because it is here a matter of taste, and life must be full (and is rich) of differences.--Jebulon (talk) 07:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The idea is good, but the focus should be on the foreground element. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The educational merit of this image lies not in the subject itself, but in the way it demonstrates how soft but directional light models structured surfaces. I disagree with Yann concerning the focus: imho focusing on the middle pillar was the right choice, though a higher f-number for more DOF might have been better. On top of all that, I find it aesthetically pleasing enough to be more than just a QI/VI. --El Grafo (talk) 09:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC) BTW: Michael Freeman's "Capturing Light", a book entirely dedicated to different lighting situations and how to use them in photography and my personal recommendation for anyone doing outdoor photography, uses very similar images. [reply]
Support per above. @Jebulon: Why shouldn't Commons try to be as inclusive as reasonably possible regarding its formats, motives, topics, approaches, and techniques? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Traditional and classic style, nice. --Laitche (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Proboscis monkey (Nasalis larvatus) female Labuk Bay.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2015 at 08:34:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info Proboscis monkey, female, Labuk Bay, Sabah, Borneo created by Charlesjsharp - uploaded by User:Charlesjsharp - nominated by User:Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 08:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 08:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support the nose of a pig. Tomer T (talk) 09:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting animal. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very interesting animal. I like the way the nose and the eyelash are standing out. It gives the photo a special flavour. --Hafspajen (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose fine, but unfortunate light imo, the whole face lies in shadow. Direction of light also causes the eyelash to be disturbing in contrast with the dark face. Jpeg artifacts too, do you shoot RAW? Useful, but not QI imo, sorry. --Kadellar (talk) 11:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I do shoot RAW but this version taken from JPEG. Eyelash is feature! Charles (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has some shade on the face too, and it is a fantastic picture, I say, could be featured too.... File:Noctem - Asaco Metal Fest 2013 - 06.jpg--Hafspajen (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm fine with the shadows. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kadellar.--Fotoriety (talk) 00:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Even in shadow, the face is clear enough for me. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A few small,but nice and good --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 17:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent pose overcomes the quality. --Laitche (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not completely perfect (slight blown highlights on shoulder) but I'm not going to complain when so many other problematic aspects of photos like these (DoF, bokeh) are so adroitly handled. Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Light is really not ideal. Neither is the detail. — Julian H.^✈ 16:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Зюра́ткуль.JPG, withdrawn[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2015 at 20:18:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Zyuratkul National Park, Chelyabinsk Oblast, Russia

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Katya Devyatova - nominated by A.Savin --A.Savin 20:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A.Savin 20:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but not sure if that nice. As is often a problem with partial snow, it's so bright that little dynamic range is left for everything else. The foreground (maybe the whole image) is underexposed in my opinion. — Julian H.^✈ 21:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice indeed but for that composition can work, the light must come from the right and highlight the foreground object (boat), exemple. -- Christian Ferrer 11:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --A.Savin 13:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tallinn rue Pikk La maison du voyeur.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2015 at 09:01:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Maison "Art Nouveau" sise au N° 21 de la rue Pikk à Tallinn (sculptures d' Auguste Volz) created - uploaded by PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ - nominated by --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That's an interesting close up shot (like the heads) but not quite sure about the composition. little wow overall. - Benh (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very distorted. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment very distorded??? Alchemist-hp Sorry! In fact the roof of this house is exactly like this. It's "Art Nouveau" style.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Je pense qu'il veut parler de la distortion due à la perspective. Je crois qu'il a raison...--Jebulon (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose whether or not it's distorted. The sky is posterized and has dust spots. It is also not sharp enough. — Julian H.^✈ 20:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose White balance is off—too cool overall, unnatural sky. And that's before I even noticed the distortion. Daniel Case (talk) 05:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thank you for your advices.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: as per above comments: no chance it will be FP. Yann (talk) 11:27, 27 July 2015 (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:WOW Air Airbus A320s at Keflavik Airport.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2015 at 17:58:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles
Info created by Milan Nykodym - uploaded by Wowair - nominated by The Photographer -- The Photographer (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow for me -- The Photographer (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice wow idea. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 07:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW! --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 10:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WOW wow _{good but not FP for me and overprocessed.} --Laitche (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice image. Reguyla (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too noisy, lots of dust spots. --Code (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessing noted by Laitche is particularly obvious on the flowers; also, for me, the composition is just too ordinary; it creates some confusion as to whether the subject is the foreground flowerscape or the airplane(s). Could be a QI with more adroit processing but never an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wow, there are, but quality issues. Yann (talk) 08:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Yann comment The Photographer (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Papaver oriëntale. Locatie, Tuinen Mien Ruys.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2015 at 16:06:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info Papaver oriëntale. Location, Mien Ruys Gardens in the Netherlands. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good,I love the composition --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 16:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The background spoils very nice subject. --Laitche (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much is blown out on the red channel, unfortunately. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above.--Fotoriety (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support No complaints. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 13:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to me. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. Also, in my opinion, not that much wow. — Julian H.^✈ 20:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, also not a fan of the background. --El Grafo (talk)
I withdraw my nomination.Thank you all for the comments.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ermita de Nuestra Señora de Jerusalén, Artajona, Navarra, España, 2015-01-06, DD 09.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2015 at 05:07:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info View in a foggy morning of the basilica of Our Lady of Jerusalem, Artajona, Navarre, Spain. The basilica was built between 1709 and 1714 honors the Lady of Jerusalem, patron saint of Artajona. All by me. Poc o² 05:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 05:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Muy buena imagen, felicidades! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- At first look, I thought it was a painting. Though not quite sharp, but well shot. Nikhil (talk) 07:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 07:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support a bit overprocessed? but great mood! --Laitche (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ✖ ２ ~~Support~~ (will this trick work on the bot?) This is wonderful. What a nice mood. Harldy spoiled by the electric line ! - Benh (talk) 09:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Benh: Double votes? --Laitche (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was just a humorous way to show I'm very impressed. Maybe not as humorous as I intended but as long as one gets the understatement ;) - Benh (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I arranged your vote :) --Laitche (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support wow -- Christian Ferrer 11:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Christian - WOW! --Pudelek (talk) 11:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice mood. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice Poco, well done --The Photographer (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with the painting comments. Quality is not great, but the mood certainly is. --DXR (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice mood (wonder what Lightroom 6.1's dehaze would make of this :-)) but the right-hand-side dark trees and metal structure just spoil the scene. I suggest a 2:1 crop at the left (as indicated). So I think a better picture is possible. -- Colin (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Metal structure for me is a minor problem too, I had added a note about it, however, dark areas make a nice contrast in the composition with the foreground and background. --The Photographer (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks very painterly with the fog ... I really thought it was one at first. The crop wouldn't change my !vote, although I'm not bothered at all by the issues it addresses. Daniel Case (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Painting-like. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful. --Code (talk) 08:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 07:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vista do Mirante do Forte dos Remédios da praia de Fernando de Noronha.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2015 at 00:30:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Brunno Monteiro Lira - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice location, but nothing special in the photo, not a nice hour to shoot, a little bit haze, very flat image, lack of vibrancy, contrast... and what technique is that? ISO 400 1/320s f/9?? We have tons of the same photo available on the internet, all than seems better: [20] [21] including: File:Fernando de Noronha - Pernambuco - Brasil(5).jpg... -- RTA 01:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodrigo.Argenton: If you want, you can oppose at Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list, too. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ArionEstar for a QI, maybe... they approve some weird things :P -- RTA 01:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sant'Agata dei Goti (Rome) - Interior.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2015 at 21:31:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 02:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely done, but... I would have included a little bit more top to bottom. Also, I wonder what it would look like during a mass. The demographics would be interesting. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's Barrel distortion that should be fixed in my opinion here. It may be used for dramatic effect (I'm a fan of that), but don't think it's intentional here. - Benh (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, Done thanks --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little bit too dark in some places, and the lights higher up are sort of blown—but given the very Baroque feel of the church that actually works in the image's favor. Daniel Case (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe too strong contrast, but it works here. --Mile (talk) 08:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Overall a bit too unsharp. --Laitche (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Info Demoted/Delisted to not featured per this consensus. --Cart (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:140626 Tierser Alpl Rosszähne.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2015 at 05:00:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Code - uploaded by Code - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer 05:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 05:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you very much for the nomination, Christian! --Code (talk) 05:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support dramatic! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and clean --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice mountain. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 10:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. — Julian H.^✈ 20:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 05:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mausoleum of Galla Placidia mosaics.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2015 at 16:59:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info Combination of ceiling mosaics (from left: passage, arch, cupola) in mausoleum of Galla Placidia. UNESCO World heritage site. Ravenna, Italy. All by Mile (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 17:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info Demoted to 'not featured' due to sock double vote. 4 October 2018. --Cart (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Morpho peleides (Kollar, 1850).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2015 at 00:40:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 06:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I find the flash too harsh in this case. The wing damage doesn't make it an ideal specimen either, although I suppose it has some value in showing how the wing damage is manifested. Diliff (talk) 10:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Diliff and the damage is not only the wing but also the legs. --Laitche (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Colours distorted by flash or editing. This image File:Morpho peleides02.jpg is so much better Charles (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support even though I agree partly with Diliff here. --Tremonist (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Diliff. Daniel Case (talk) 03:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. -- Colin (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info We must realize that the Wikimedia not only images for Wikipedia provides, but also for many other media that require images. This image shows the disability at a butterfly. Disability is an important issue. In books and lectures on the topic "handicap" can this image be shown at the beginning and lead in this way on "disability". This is an example of the subsequent use of the image in the media. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 05:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Storebæltsforbindelsen højbroen.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2015 at 18:36:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info all by Villy Fink Isaksen -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes the composition work,the subject is clear and interesting --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lighting just isn't very exciting for me. I also feel there could be more of the rocks down below. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per King, sorry. Competent shot and useful, but the light doesn't allow for much wow. --DXR (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sufficiently wowed, and I'm not sure the light's all of that. Maybe it's the pale sky that doesn't offset the earth tones of the rock enough. Maybe it's the composition that seems not to be able to distinguish between bridge and rocks as the subject of the image. Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Colin (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think for this composition to really work, the central part of the bridge would have to be closer. Also per others. — Julian H.^✈ 16:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 05:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Embalse de la Tranquera, Zaragoza, España, 2015-01-09, DD 46.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2015 at 03:02:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 04:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Nice lighting and colors. The sharpness of the trees at the left is a bit disappointing, especially given the 10.8 MP resolution. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharpness is quite fine. I don't see how the trees are not sharp. But not fan of the flat lighting. - Benh (talk) 07:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not extraordinary, no wow for me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I'm so sorry. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:NSG Rotwildpark Stuttgart 2014 14 Bärenschlössle.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2015 at 08:23:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural (not sure actually)
Info c/u/n by me. — Julian H.^✈ 08:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 08:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Another panorama, but not very interesting and too much processed (see the leaves).... in short, no wow--Σπάρτακος (talk) 09:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. Just as a note, I don't think this counts as a panorama. — Julian H.^✈ 10:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Σπάρτακος: I did some editing now to improve the leave rendering, but I might just have made it worse because I'm not sure exactly what you dislike about them. Could you check and/or specifiy what you don't like? — Julian H.^✈ 12:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support At first it didn't made me fell WOW because it seemed like a usual lake-side picture. Although, the reflection on the water is simply brilliant here. A few clouds in the sky might help, though. -- Pofka (talk) 14:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Pofka. --Tremonist (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Maybe QI,nothing more for me. --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 14:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 21:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Livio and Pofka. As some of you may have noticed, I've been doing a lot of reorganizing work on the "water reflections" categories in the last month or so, so I've looked at a lot of pictures like this. This one is very well-done, definitely a QI, but doesn't stand out enough for me to support it as an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination. (Sorry for the workload, should have probably seen this myself) — Julian H.^✈ 21:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:A rolling stone gathers no moss.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2015 at 03:30:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks oversharpened to me, most remarkable on the unsharp areas at the edges. I would also expect better sharpness at the edges - wasn't it a flat structure? --Tuxyso (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @ Tuxyso You are correct on the sharpening and the soft edges. On the sharpening... I oversharpened intentionally because I am treating this as an abstract interpretation of color and texture, while trying to minimize some of the softness. On the soft edges... I decided to go with them after I saw them in the computer, it really ticked me off becuase that lens is not supposed to do that, it is an L series Canon lens, and while taking pictures I intentionally used f8 for its supposed sweet spot and to avoid this potential problem. I get now that this lens is no good in macro mode. Nonetheless, the softness works for me, perhaps not for others, as an abstraction. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think a more useful description would be important to be able to judge the image. I expected it to be an underwater photo from the image quality, but nothing else suggests that it is. — Julian H.^✈ 07:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @ Julian, You are correct, is is not an underwater shot... and will update desription. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These are lichens, not moss. I've changed the categorization accordingly, suggest to change the description as well (maybe something like "various species of lychen covering a rock"?). --El Grafo (talk) 07:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @ El Grafo Thank you for your pointing out the correct classification and for updating the category. One learns soomething new everyday!!! And I will update the description... I don´t know if I can change the file name, but I think it still conveys an idea. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Even if not scientific neither precise nor descriptive enough, I think the current tomascastelazian file name makes sense, even in french. Please Keep it... My two centesimos.--Jebulon (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Merci Caballero. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 06:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't know, but what is a title for? Certainly having a smart idiom as title will not help anybody searching images of the subject. Working your way through the cats is quite weird for non-commoners, so I see little value in such a title, at least here (opposed to flickr etc., where you have tags). --DXR (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Could be interesting if executed well, but unfortunately both the sharpness and the post-processing are really not convincing to me. --DXR (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks really interesting! --Tremonist (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too blured at all sides -- Christian Ferrer 19:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't expect a stone as perfectly flat. So I can live with many unsharp parts. And f/8 seems the sharpest aperture of the lens. I'll support if a less or little processed picture is uploaded. J e e 03:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2015 Kostra, Góry Bardzkie, Sudety.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2015 at 21:15:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful landscape. --Tremonist (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC
Support Drought --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 16:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support What are you doing with my camera and my lens Jacek? ....I joke --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Uaoaei1. One of those pictures that you think looks great right after you take it ... until you get home and look at it closely on your monitor and see all the clutter and asymmetry you didn't realize was there. Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, sorry; nothing featurable imo. --Kadellar (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The picture draws my eyes to the hill in the middle, but I don't find it's a very rewarding subject, making the composition a bit boring. Lighting could be better as well. Why not trying at sunrise or sunset? - Benh (talk) 09:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, lacks interesting content in my eyes. — Julian H.^✈ 20:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mundane composition. Technical quality OK, but not very good due to limitations of equipment (poor sharpness near edges). dllu (t,c) 11:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2015 Koniunkcja Jowisza i Wenus.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2015 at 21:11:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Special space. --Laitche (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unremarkable composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice mood. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 16:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per KoH, looks like standard photostream fodder. Daniel Case (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: And yet you are supporting? --Code (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Daniel likes the contradictions... --Laitche (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; I had meant to oppose; I had gotten back from Mexico earlier in the day and I was tired and probably shouldn't have been editing. !Vote amended. Daniel Case (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't find the composition really appealing either, but the title Conjunction of Jupiter and Venus (or something like that) suggests that the main subject is made of the two dots on the very upper right corner. It's not a successful depiction of the topic in my opinion. It's possible to catch them near horizon to get a better composition (I don't talk about the basic composition on that photo of course). Besides, I really expect to see some other stars in the sky of a photo which promises you "astronomy" (perhaps not as many as on the milky way nom though). - Benh (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Benh. Indeed, his picture is much more interesting: File:Astrophotography Panorama Test Shot.jpg. Yann (talk) 11:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Yann, but I feel a bit embarassed. It was only a quick test shot (practical field test to try to reproduce how the milky way nom was shot) and I never thought it was worthy an upload on Commons. At least I'll try to clone the electric line out (only added the task to my backlog for now) - Benh (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that, even far to be perfect, but still better that this nomination. If you can clone out the cables, it will be great. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Kruusamägi (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bee on Lavender Blossom.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2015 at 06:48:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera
Info Not intended to serve as a perfect example of a classic macro shot per se - although taken with a macro lense (Canon EF 100 2,8). I like this picture primarily for a couple of compositional reasons: The stems and leaves, each showing a different level of blur, provide depth as well as vertical structure; the smooth green background contrasts well with the bee's yellow-orange profile. All by --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I find the out-of-focus blossom on the left distracting, it clashes with the blurred green background. I know cropping it out will disturb your composition, but that's what I would do. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info Cropped as suggested by Bruce1ee --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thanks, I think that's better. —Bruce1ee^talk 09:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 12:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer this one. --Laitche (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bzzzzzz! ~~15:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)~~ 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your support, Anonymus! ;-) ArionEstar maybe? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]
  - Done. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Light from back, making eye in shadows. But overall OK, as a very small subject. J e e 02:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Much nicer. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 16:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Bee on Lavender Blossom 2.jpg

File:White-cheeked Starlings perching on the cables.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2015 at 17:23:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info White-cheeked Starlings perching on the cables. c/u/n by Laitche (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitche (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, IMO FP - but the crop could be better, without half birds. --XRay ^talk 17:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@XRay:

Done --Laitche (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Better. Hopefully you like this crop. Thanks. --XRay ^talk 18:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A normal picture of a normal day --Σπάρτακος (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wish I see more of theses. Am not lucky enough to witness that on my own normal days, and certainly not normal by FPC's standard (not a panorama, nor a shell, nor a church...). I would try to make the cables parallels to strengthen the composition. - Benh (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unusual FPC of birds. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry,but not wow for me --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

orz --Laitche (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this way will be more original

--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the birds sitting on this cables looking a bit like a sheet music. --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice idea and composition. --Code (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 06:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! --Tremonist (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a very classic type image, very cliché, and generally works nice. In this case I think that the blue is too overwhelming and takes away the punch that this type of image has visually. I prefer much lighter sky and in black and white. This image, generally speaking is about photographic rythm. I would support this image if the sky was lightened by 2 f stops. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great idea but, per Tomas, background is a little too dark. Also I think the dead space at top and bottom could be cropped down a bit. Daniel Case (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Tomas： @Daniel： Lightened. --Laitche (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks nice Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jules Bianchi Marussia 2013 Silverstone F1 Test 002.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2015 at 19:05:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created by Nic Redhead - uploaded by Kaiketsu - nominated by Σπάρτακος -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Upper part is very dark. --Tremonist (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment imho, with no car might be better... --Laitche (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well Laitche, the middle of the picture is just the machine (with Jules Bianchi dead a few days ago after the incident in Suzuka) --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 11:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Livio: I have no words about that. Maybe I want to see his back walking on this road and holding the helmet with his hand. --Laitche (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Japan, nobody do not mention it Laitche ? In Italy many calling for the head of the guy with the green flag --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 16:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Livio: Yes, of course I knew it but did not realize this photo is him until read your comment. I saw many news in Japanese but all of them had written "ビアンキ", so I didn't know the spelling... Kamui commented about his death, I don't know any more about that in Japan. --Laitche (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, no wow. Composition seems unbalanced, with car too far to the left and the top too dark. Daniel Case (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel Case. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. -- Pofka (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Norra Kvill National Park, Sweden (by Pudelek).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2015 at 12:45:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support FP, but IMO minor CAs at the right. --XRay ^talk 17:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very nice, I like this photo but a bit small for this type photos, left and the right top crop are a bit pity. Nearly support neutral. --Laitche (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1350px on the short edge is just way too little for a recent image, let alone a fairly ordinary landscape FP candidate. I am frankly a bit surprised if people critizise noise in 30+ MP images and support such images like this that are strongly downsampled, sorry. --DXR (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 16:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, noting the minor CA as XRay does. Daniel Case (talk) 03:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per DXR, sorry. I think for a landscape photo, 6 MP is not too much to ask. — Julian H.^✈ 20:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support D kuba (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all per DXR. Don't see any CA (if people mentioning them point them out). - Benh (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose small, dark and no wow. Kruusamägi (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Salarom Sabah Frame-of-a-new-house-01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2015 at 12:01:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info A carpenter is working at the frame of a newly built, traditional house in the village of Salarom in Sabah, Malaysia.

All by-- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support High EV and well done, but the sky looks a little bit cyanic. Additionally, the sharpness of the main subject could be a little bit better. --Code (talk) 05:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I slightly raised the sharpness. For the sky, I have to mention, that it indeed looks like that. If you compare with other photos of my Sabah series, taken at very bright days under bornean light, you will notice, that they all look like that. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 09:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 18:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 16:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice to have something like this. I can vouch for the sky being like that; it drives me nuts sometimes. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Best picture I've ever seen of a timber frame house under construction, but unfortunately the blown clouds in back are too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for review, Daniel, but please check your monitor. I don't know how you sugguest, that the clouds are blown out. I can see structure in every cloud and the histo of the full resolution also tells me, that there is not a single pixel which has RGB 255. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I checked my monitor, it's alright. However, while it is true that there were no 255 areas, there were a lot that were close (245, 249). So I wondered if I could bring out the clouds a little more. See below. Daniel Case (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support D kuba (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see any blown cloud here. Technically very good, rare and high EV document. Never seen this, FP for me.--Jebulon (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colors. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --· Favalli ⟡ 00:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
strong Support not tack sharp (and some artifacts on some edges) but the topic is very interesting and the setting and lighting are beautiful. - Benh (talk) 06:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative with highlights reduced

If someone's interested in voting for this, please go ahead. Daniel Case (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry to say so, but it is oversaturated now and the sky top left is posterized. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to fix your monitor

. But you must admit there's more cloud structure visible. Daniel Case (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Halavar (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as editor. Daniel Case (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversaturated. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose was pretty good already, and this only worsens it. - Benh (talk) 06:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Salarom Sabah Frame-of-a-new-house-01.jpg

File:Plans de Frea Murfrëit y Saslonch.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2015 at 21:19:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info all by -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 23:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Compositionally very nice but please remove the dust spots in the sky. There are at least three of them. --Code (talk) 08:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Thanks for the hint and support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 10:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice view and natural colors _{except CAs on the left upper corner}. --Laitche (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Fixed, thanks --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Another landscape that I wish I had taken. Daniel Case (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe I had cropped a bit at right, but what a nice picture !--Jebulon (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The blacks in the foreground really lose significant detail and look unnaturally contrasty in my opinion. The, theoretically, bad light isn't too bad here in my opinion because it makes everything look so gigantic. — Julian H.^✈ 20:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for the review. The lights are not unnatural because they are on the picture as in rality whith a very bright and clear sun. You are right about the lights which someone might like smoother as I in fact usually do but i could not change them on that moment ;-) --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 08:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kszapsza (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 08:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Río Dynjandisá, Vestfirðir, Islandia, 2014-08-14, DD 118-120 HDR.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2015 at 19:58:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Flow of the Dynjandisá river just over the Dynjandi waterfall in the region of Vestfirðir, northwestern Iceland. Poc o² 19:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 19:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is more sharp of the others,more the river give a beautiful composition --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --Pudelek (talk) 09:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because of the dull lighting and "random" composition (don't get a better word in my thin english vocabulary, no offense intended). - Benh (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose About lighting per Benh, I guess this is intentional composition but not works, imo. --Laitche (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition don't work for me too. -- Christian Ferrer 11:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition, and having freshly experienced the challenges and rewards of photography in wild Arctic and subarctic landscapes I honestly don't think you could do much better than this—you could wait for a clear day, but that's asking for a lot of time. Daniel Case (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support For what Mr. Chase said. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per opposers. Dull light is unfortunate and might be common, but that doesn't make this image outstanding. Subject doesn't really make up for this either. --DXR (talk) 09:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 21:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 08:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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