Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/July 2018

File:Bruderwald-Winter-PC030149.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2018 at 07:19:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Germany
Info created & uploaded by User:Ermell - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is one of a number of photos I've seen by Ermell with remarkable resplendent bright light, and this one is particularly special because it's framed by dark trees. I notice the unsharp foreground, especially on the right, but it's a negligible drawback in context. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The light is really special, though I'd have preferred to see them coming than leaving -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Having them leaving reduces the problem with identity. --Cart (talk) 09:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P999 (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's hard to imagine a better light for those guys. --Podzemnik (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nomination Ikan.--Ermell (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the few times when the subdued colors actually enhance the image, since it's winter and that's what you'd expect. Daniel Case (talk) 06:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 07:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great mood --Poc o² 17:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Techelsberg Pfarrkirche Sankt Martin Kaplanei 31012015 752.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2018 at 06:03:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support crop would ideally be a little wider, I think... but it looks like any wider would risk including unwanted elements. Storkk (talk) 10:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support ...and to crop the house on the right. --Llez (talk) 10:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ordinary church, partially hidden. --Yann (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the contrast between the linearity of the church and the curve of the slope. Probably more obvious in the snow. Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 04:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 09:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd like to have more space on the right and tiny bit on left but it's pretty lovely anyway. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 14:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Virmalised 15.09.2017 - Aurora Borealis 15.09.2017 copy.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2018 at 07:07:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created & uploaded by User:KristianPikner - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks artificial, with saturated colors. Exploring the other pictures of the photographer on his user page, I find most of them strongly "photoshopped", like for example this sunset and this one both shot within an interval of a few minutes only, but showing very different tones (and I've never seen a sun yellow like this, except on my screen when I'm playing with the settings). So not really convinced by this night shot, unfortunately, that I suspect similarly over-processed -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the yellowish light has more to do with the camera. My camera, and some other I've seen, has the same problem with some red wavelengths. I can look at a very red sunset, but in the photo I take of it, it comes out very yellow. Many electronic devices see and record light spectrum differently than our eyes. That is why you can check if your TV remote control works by looking at it through your mobile camera. You don't see the light from it IRL but on your mobile (and digital camera) it shines brightly. --Cart (talk) 09:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basile, your examples are well chosen so that we can see your point clearly. However, for a picture of an aurora, this looks possible to me, but mind you, I've only seen an aurora once, in Massachusetts (we could see some activity for a few days), and it was by no means as vivid as this one, much further north. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, concerning the yellow sun, I was talking about this one File:Loojang_08.01.2017_-_Sunset_08.01.2017_1.jpg or this one File:Loojang_08.01.2017_-_Sunset_08.01.2017_2.jpg, given as examples for strong processing. I think it's true that cameras don't always give the same result than the eyes. Sometimes you see a cloudy sky and when you shoot it becomes white, until you fix the settings. So I'm not against the post-process, on the contrary often useful, but this is very important to do that moderately, and not to fall in the extreme to invent something that never existed (for this kind of documentary photograph). Here in this nom how was really the landscape, the sun and the stars ? No idea, it's hard to trust -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with red sun and sky turning yellow in a camera can't be fixed by adjusting the settings. It has to do with certain wavelengths and not how bright an object is. --Cart (talk) 13:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This one is a 10-second exposure, though the others you link to were .008 seconds and such. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it doesn't mean than the colors have not been strongly altered. Also 10 seconds seem short to me for 2500 iso -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find the discussion a bit of the point. Yes, the saturation has probably been pushed up a little bit, and yes, that is not what you would see with bare eyes. But, honestly, no picture taken with long exposure at night does, as the camera is much more sensitive, and subsequently all long exposures show something "artificial". When comparing the colors of the aurora to what I have seen/pictures I have taken in Iceland and Norway i do not think that the saturation has been pushed too excessively. --C-M (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support While there are some quality issues, it's a very beautiful picture --A.Savin 12:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P999 (talk) 13:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --C-M (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 17:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mermaid Parade (61042).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2018 at 19:29:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info A sea creature during this year's Coney Island Mermaid Parade, an annual, bigger-than-you'd-think, marine-themed fantasy/folklore event in New York City. own work. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent juxtaposition of lines and colors. And the eyes are in focus. :) --Cart (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great colours, lines, composition & quality, --Podzemnik (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love this umbrella -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing and wow! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 06:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 12:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the way the spots on the umbrella play off against those on the face. Daniel Case (talk) 05:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 07:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 17:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Rotenburg (22).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2018 at 20:26:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Germany
Info Panorama taken in Rothenburg ob der Tauber (Ansbach Regierungsbezirk Mittelfranken), in Germany, created by Pierre André Leclercq - uploaded by Pierre André Leclercq - nominated by Pierre André Leclercq --Pierre André ^(talk) 20:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pierre André ^(talk) 20:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a great view, but the dull lighting from the overcast sky does not make for an outstanding image. dllu (t,c) 00:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, more or less per dllu. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Vivid colors missing -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 04:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Smiley Mantodea.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2018 at 13:52:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family_:_Hymenopodidae_(Flower_Mantises)
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely beautiful shot!!! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very good quality and nice insect -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support That is one cool bug! --Cart (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 06:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 07:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart -- P999 (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support very funny Olivier LPB (talk) 11:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 17:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Granada (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:View of Helldalsisen and the peak from Blåfjell.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2018 at 20:42:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info View from the same location, but in the opposite direction of this picture: Mørsvikbotn seen from Blåfjell created by Frankemann - uploaded by Frankemann - nominated by Frankemann -- Frankemann (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Frankemann (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose - I appreciate your labeling. However, the one place you don't label is the part of the picture that I love: The rock and beautifully lit snow in the near left corner. Most of the rest of the picture is quite hazy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much of the picture is dark -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Hi Ikan Kekek and Basile Morin, do you think that adjusting the light in the dark areas will help?
  Kind regards --Frankemann (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I see this landscape, nearly everything is in the darkness. The luminous small rock in the foreground is nice, but isolated. Not sure you can manage to light this valley artificially -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, much of it is kind of dark, but it is also a special glow to the landscape because of the very low sun. --Frankemann (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but I wasn't disturbed by the light: It was the amount of haze that was my issue. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean Ikan Kekek. I think it is due to high ISO and a lot of humidity in the air. I have purchased a very small and easy tripod for such occasions. Too bad I had no such thing on this trip. --Frankemann (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice light and very instructive. --Milseburg (talk) 10:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Milseburg --Code (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. --Basotxerri (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Regretful oppose~~ Support No better example of that soft Arctic summer evening light have I seen, and as for the colors ... it's so Maxfield Parrish. ~~But there's too much noise in the shadows, and I get the feeling the land may have been processed too much.~~ Daniel Case (talk) 05:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't processed, then what we have is acceptable. Daniel Case (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Daniel, from comment on a previous nomination, I got the impression that this photographer doesn't use photo image programs and that his photos are straight out of camera. Is that how it is, Frankemann? --Cart (talk) 09:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well Cart, I have used such programs sometimes, especially to correct the white balance for pictures with snow and strong sun. However, this image has not been processed. Kind regards --Frankemann (talk) 11:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cormoran olivaceo - Phalacrocorax brasilianus silouette.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2018 at 05:16:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp, bad lighting. Not a QI -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice bird, and I like the idea of a silhouette, but the overall composition with the flat areas of white light on top isn't really working that well for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan.--Peulle (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan; also all those branches undo what the image might have gotten from the simplicity of the silhouette. Daniel Case (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 08:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Garceta verde - Butorides virescens - Green heron.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2018 at 05:13:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp, blurry. Not a QI -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, somewhat per Basile: Perfectly OK but not great. The composition is growing on me, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 05:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Swing into books, Book week, November 1-7, 1964.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2018 at 03:49:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Bruno Munari - uploaded by Moheen Reeyad - nominated by Moheen Reeyad -- ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 03:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 03:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The industrial typography spoils the drawing. A manual calligraphy for these two lines of text would have made it more special -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. The combination does not bother me. :)--Peulle (talk) 12:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Peulle. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it too; however I've tagged it as being better in .PNG format. Daniel Case (talk) 06:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Disagree.~~ The original file seems to be a lithograph, and the details of the ink spread on the paper are visible at full size. ~~Changing this JPG into a PNG will result in a loss of quality. Daniel Case better to remove your template IMO~~ -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If others agree, I will. Daniel Case (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended my comment, which was supposing this lithograph shot by a camera as we usually do for paintings. PNGs are well adapted to vector graphics, and this piece of art is made of irregular solid pigments. Every lithograph is unique, see for example 2 similar lithographs by Kandinsky 1 and 2 that slightly differ to each other. But this image also may come from a scan, so yes, in that case PNG will be better. Sorry, no problem with the template anymore -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question Sorry, what about the copyright, as the author died in 1998 ?--Jebulon (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jebulon: It was published without a copyright notice; at that time that puts it in the public domain now ... I think.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Case (talk • contribs)

Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 06:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chile relleno.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2018 at 02:04:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd like to support, as the chili looks really good, though I wouldn't mind a wider crop on the right. I have a question, though: Are the spots on the plate part of the plate's design? I think so, but I don't know for sure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ikan Kekek, yes, the spots are part of the plate... on the crop I have it wider but this is the good one. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The crop at the top is also tight. Nevertheless, I Support per my comment above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quality for the rice isn't sufficient. I'm sorry. Olivier LPB (talk) 12:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A good food photo should make you want to eat what's in the picture. There is something about the light, crop and presentation in this that make the dish look unappetizing to me even though I like this kind of food. Sorry. --Cart (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Olivier LPB. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Common cottongrass in a cliff crevice.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2018 at 09:16:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Poales
Info c, u, n by -- Cart (talk) 09:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 09:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent light and sharpness.--Peulle (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Empty part on the left is distracting -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with Basile. I would be likely to support if the leftmost third or so to the left of the prominent blade of grass were cropped out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I expected that comment since the compo is the same as in this nom. Having that "breathing space" to the left is a matter of taste, to me it brings the big open airy places where these plants grow into the picture. I'm very reluctant to crop it, since that would be like fencing it in, boxing and package it. I understand that to those who haven't seen this plant in its true environment, it is just another cute fluffy grass, so oppinions will differ. --Cart (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Fencing, boxing and package" : I don't know why. Or that's what we do each time we take a picture, choosing a special format. This dark and blurry part on the left is more congesting than "airy" IMO, as it suggests there's something worth looking for and find in this area, while you can search for long never being rewarded -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably a Swedish thing, we are a melancholy and minimalist people. As said before, tastes differ and you can't expect mine to be the same as yours. --Cart (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'd prefer a tighter crop (portrait, square) as well --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info Alternative since, as I said, "opinions will differ". --Cart (talk) 09:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support O.K. for me the same. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) 'Pinging' all voters, Peulle Basile Ikan Johann Martin. --Cart (talk) 09:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I love the bushy white flowers and the light on them, and I like the form. I don't feel like nitpicking about anything in this version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 11:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Common cottongrass in a cliff crevice 2.jpg

File:20180602 FIFA Friendly Match Austria vs. Germany Team Germany 850 0740.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2018 at 18:49:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created by Granada - uploaded by Granada - nominated by Granada -- Granada (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support This team is now historic in having gained an unexpected fourth place of four after the group phase of the FIFA world cup 2018 in Russia. -- Granada (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I want a full set of these, one for each country, please. :) They are also valuable to extract photos of the individual players from. --Cart (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd love to go to the next international soccer event e.g. the upcoming European Football Championships 2020 in Italy and take these group photos of all the participating countries, but it's one thing to take a 300km ride from Vienna to Klagenfurt on a single evening but a completely different ballpark to go to Italy for two weeks, have accommodation and travel around to visit the matches taking place in stadiums all over the country. Regarding portraits of individual players: that's why I'm fiddling around with two bodies during hymn ceremonies (and the match as well) being fitted with a 70-200 for the group shots and a 400mm for the head shots during the hymn itself. It's a quite tough job to fight for a place in the first row together with 30 other photographers wanting the same. :) --Granada (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: the Euro 2020 will take place all over Europe - impossible for a Wikipedian to visit these matches. --Granada (talk) 05:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we are grateful for every photo you can take. It's also fun to compare this with older lineups, today it looks like all players have personal hair stylists and do a daily regime with skincare products. ;) --Cart (talk) 09:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support The most mediocre selection of all time --The Photographer 01:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

not even mediocre --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they played bad actually. Their opponents just knew how to deal with a team which wasn't afraid of attacking. Much better than (say) a French team who qualified with some very very boring game. Sorry about the digression - Benh (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support The laugh is always on the loser. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not a sport fan but I have to admit that your pictures are cool and useful for the project. --Podzemnik (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I take it, it was raining? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The match was delayed almost 90 minutes as a heavy rain shower came down over Klagenfurt that night (see e.g. File:20180602 FIFA Friendly Match Austria vs. Germany rainy stadium 850 0594.jpg and there was still light rain during the hymn ceremony. After kick off the sky cleared and the sun came out.

Support - Thank you. The rain is well captured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not quite as crisp as the Brazil photo, but still... --A.Savin 14:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support With the caption: "Drei Spiele sind gut genug für uns!" Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 06:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 07:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports#Team sports

File:Dynamic Mobile Steel Sculpture, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2018 at 04:12:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by me. View from below of Dynamic Mobile Steel Sculpture, an abstract sculpture from 1979 by Canadian artist George Norris (1928-2013). The statue is located in a foyer od the Central Branch of the Great Victoria Public Library (between Broughton and Courtney St), Victoria, British Columbia, Canada -- Podzemnik (talk) 04:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 14:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This image has a rhythm. Superb composition! -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes, there's some CA, especially in the corners. No deal breaker at all to me! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support But can you try to remove the CAs? --Llez (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Martin Falbisoner and Llez: Well spotted guys, your eyes are well trained :) I've removed it. --Podzemnik (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Karelj (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Impressive -- P999 (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 06:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Northern Hehuanshan.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2018 at 14:47:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Eric - uploaded by Eric - nominated by Eric -- Ericliu1912 (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ericliu1912 (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Saturated colors, unsharp, and too small -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Besides the mentioned issues, I can't see an outstanding composition here. Disturbing grass in the foreground in front of an disturbing road. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per others Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 08:25, 2 July 2018 (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) 10:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Salinas de Janubio - Lanzarote.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2018 at 15:29:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much distracting foreground, too little of the object. Sorry. Renata3 (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support good as it is though a minor crop (per Renata3) might even improve the composition --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 03:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Renata. Daniel Case (talk) 05:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Juvenile Black-naped Oriole @ KL.tif, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2018 at 13:21:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Oriolidae_(Orioles)
Info Do not fear failure but rather fear not trying. ― R. T. Bennett. All by me. -- GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 13:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ I won't really nominate this for QI because if I pixel-peep, I'd see some unsharp places (I did not put any sharpness). I had to lower the vibrance so that the picture wouldn't look like a painting (these birds are so colorful). However, I was "wowed" by this image, and I thought maybe others may enjoy it. -- GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 13:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will humbly accept all criticism and try my best to learn and improve. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose sorry but the subject is not well represented. Further more, 120Mo for a 20Mpx ? Olivier LPB (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Olivier LPB: Yeah, it's a TIFF file in case you didn't notice. These things are huge... GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Presenting this in TIF might not be such a good idea since it limits the file's usability. It would be better to go with the jpeg version and link the TIF as an "other versions=" on the file page for those who like to work with such big files. You could make a jpeg version of it and nominate it as an "Alternative" here in this nomination. Btw, what does "KL" in the description stand for? Could you please write it instead of using abbreviations so that foreigners like me can understand it. ;) --Cart (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: Sure thing! Thanks for the comments. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The light is not really giving me the fizz here - also the bird's head is at a slightly unfortunate angle.--Peulle (talk) 14:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting lines with the branches, but the bird looking up isn't really working for me. Daniel Case (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Looks like the majority has a different opinion. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative jpeg version, not featured[edit]

Info Alternative JPEG _{(JPEG compression artifacts are present though...)}, Cart's suggestion. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The light is not really giving me the fizz here - also the bird's head is at a slightly unfortunate angle.--Peulle (talk) 14:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Peulle: Eh, I guess we have personal preferences; I personally like that angle, heh. How could I improve the lighting? GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be surprised if voters would like you to go out and take the same photo on a day with better light and the bird looking some other way. At FPC we routinely ask nominators to do the impossible. ;) --Cart (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: Haha, yeah. I got real damn lucky yesterday when I got this shot, I've been living here nine years and this is my first time finally getting a shot at the bird. Sadly didn't get to see it today, heh. :P --GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ask the bird to come back and strike a pose when you have the light from behind you. ;-D --Peulle (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 01:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Puesta de sol en el Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Tetlin, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-24, DD 92.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2018 at 20:59:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Sunset in Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, United States. All by me, Poc o² 20:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 20:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A little noisy, but so beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan, I've reduced the noise a bit Poc o² 10:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P999 (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Great mood and composition ... should be a tourism poster. Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mounir TOUZRI (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)--Ermell (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Geode-with-Prehnite-and-Laumontite-crystals-01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2018 at 17:34:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Rocks and Minerals
Info created - uploaded by Cccefalon - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 19:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support dllu (t,c) 00:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, I nominated this file as QI recently, and that one for FP is also a good idea -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nothing to complain about. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Haha per Johann :) --Podzemnik (talk) 05:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 06:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan -- P999 (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is it me, or do we not really get many FP noms of minerals like this? Daniel Case (talk) 05:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support This image rocks. :) (yes, I know, dry humour, sorry)--Peulle (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 17:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The image is very successful. But there is a big problem: it is an encrustation of quartz crystals on a base of limonite. there is no prehnite, nor laumontite. The caption and title must be changed. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Archaeodontosaurus, you are doubtless an expert on such minerals. For me, I only can rely on the label that was delivered with the object when brought to me for taking this photo. I am not against changing caption and title but I would appreciate a second confirmation of your analysis. Anyone else, who can second the change to "Geode with an encrustation of quartz crystals on a limonite base"? --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just go and see what prehnite and laumontite look like. It is also easy to see the quartz. Again your photographic work is not in question, but we can not make an FP Label on a determination error. Ask Christian Ferrer who is an exellent connoisseur of delicate situations. He will find a solution. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you Archaeodontosaurus for you benevolent vision of my ability to handle difficult situations, I will be much more moderate about that. I am not able to identify visually the minerals, even by comparing the other images of Laumontite, Prehnite, Quartz and Limonite, though Limonite seems indeed visually credible here. The only thing I can do is to withdraw this nomination, but before that, maybe we can search for the opinions of some users @Alchemist-hp and Géry PARENT: ? Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should be not a problem, to change name and description. If any new findings surface, we can again change the description or revert to the former one. As already stressed, I have no specific knowledge of minerals and acted only as photographer. The owner of the mineral bought it at the event "Mineralientage Dortmund, Germany". He is not cognizant of minerals either but he purchased it for its beauty. It came together with a handwritten label. Archaeodontosaurus, would you like to add a suitable description? --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's easy to say what it is not, but it's much harder to say what it is. I suppose you did not have any indication of the location of the deposit, otherwise you would have given it in the caption. The blue spot under the quartz evokes a mineralization of copper carbonate as auricalcite. There is in the gangue bottom right a microdegode also mineralized blue-green. One of the sites that would fit this piece is Mapimi in Mexico. But there are other deposits of this type in the world. In all the collections there are lots of badly labeled pieces that we keep preciously hoping one day what will be identified.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, this handwritten label was the only thing that came with the mineral. I ~~could add~~ have added a hint in brackets behind the actual description such as "(Attention: the provenience and correct determination of this mineral is disputed.)". I also modified the filename. The filename used in FP is now only a redirect. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 09:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's the dispute about the provenance? Isn't it only the chemical composition of the mineral that's at issue? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Archaeodontosaurus: All your request have been met. So what else to do? Should I dance the chemical structure for you? :-) --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are no more problems for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --XRay ^talk 10:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ascain - Oveja -BT- 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2018 at 17:01:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Possible that this might not work for everyone. Lots of negative space and B&W (the colours of the coloured version don't convince me too much). But I like it and it makes me smile! --Basotxerri (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. This one is gonna be controversial... ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

good thing I was wrong...! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another one for the art galleries. I love it, so that probably means it is controversial and Martin is right. :) But so many things in it are right: The posture of the sheep, how its wool is caught in the wind, how the wool on the stomach matches the grass, the placement just where the sky turns from light to darker. So much luck and the eye to see it, capture it and process it the right way. --Cart (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Cart. The sad thing is that I took it this way because I saw the sheep looking at me but I couldn't get closer. I got the idea for the final crop at home on the screen because there was no other way to use the image. What I've learned from it? Maybe I should think more in this kind of compositions when taking the image! --Basotxerri (talk) 09:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shhht, a ~~magician~~ artist never reveals their tricks. --Cart (talk) 09:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 22:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely --Poc o² 07:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart -- P999 (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - "Maybe sheep's born with it..." — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just remembering the Pink Floyd's "Sheep"! ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 06:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:FCAB EMD GT22CU-3 San Pedro - Ascotan.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2018 at 14:03:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail Vehicles
Info all by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Three FCAB locomotives haul an empty ore train from Calama (resp. Antofagasta) to the Bolivian border at Ollagüe, Chile. In the background you can see the >6000 m high active volcano "San Pedro".
Abstain as author -- Kabelleger (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! J e e 14:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another absolute stunning image by Kabelleger! --Basotxerri (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 15:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support POTY candidate --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like trains and I like mountains. dllu (t,c) 23:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Wow -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 07:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 08:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mounir TOUZRI (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support You can sell this photo. Needs large size paper and picture frame, for sure :) --Laitche (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on support Daniel Case (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Granada (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support i like this photo of train... Olivier LPB (talk) 12:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Storkk (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 28 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Parque estatal Chugach, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-22, DD 94.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2018 at 20:30:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info View of a glacier from the top in Chugach State Park, Alaska, United States. All by me, Poc o² 20:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 20:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Request Would it be possible to improve a bit the poor description and categorization ? No mention of ice nor crevasse at all for such a topic, it's really a lack. Also the image looks tilted. Otherwise, nice shot, impressive -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Basile Morin: The right tilt is tricky but I uploaded a new version with a guess. I also added 2 cats, will add more later. --Poc o² 10:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Perilous path ! -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support pending the work Basile asks for. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Too much unsharpness in the foreground IMO --Llez (talk) 12:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Better now --Llez (talk) 22:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Llez. The lower right in particular needs work. Daniel Case (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support It looks like you did what you could. Daniel Case (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, Llez: I applied a crop at the bottom and some more sharpness. Please, bear also in mind that this is an aerial photograph, there is no way just to stand over this area --Poc o² 18:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aerial photograph? You seem to be very close to the ground. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It probably just looks that way since these cracks are very big. Always hard to tell proportions on a glacier. --Cart (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yann, you don't believe what I say? would you indeed walkd around those crevasses? If you check my series from that day you should have not doubts anymore. As cart said those things are just huge. I guess that we were flying 15-20 meter over the glacier --Poc o² 20:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poco, did you go up in a small plane similar to these tours I found for that area? The photos on their site look much like yours. The video looks scary! --Cart (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not that I don't believe you. It is just that the image doesn't seem to be taken from the sky. But with Cart's link above I understand better, so Support. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cart (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 20:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Elibia dolichus mounted specimen, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2018 at 09:57:02 (UTC)

Male dorsal
Male ventral
Female dorsal
Female ventral

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info Elibia dolichus mounted specimen male and female created and uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Olivier LPB -- Olivier LPB (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Olivier LPB (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 18:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 20:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Desna river Vinn meadow 2016 G9.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2018 at 04:52:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Ukraine
Info created, uploaded, nominated by nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The aperture is a bit too small, rendering the image too dark for my taste. I'll let the pros judge... GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 05:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the mood --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull colors -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Martin. Daniel Case (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Appealing mix of struggling light and mist reminding me of impressionist paintings. --Iotatau (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ліонкінг ^{Lion King} 17:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support This wonderful image is sentimental and reminds me about a swamp in front of the forest. I like this picture; nearly all swamps are drained in Germany, now we try to restore the swamps to save the animals and plants who needs the swamps. --Michael Gäbler

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 08:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Home in Relation to Everything.png, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2018 at 22:55:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
Info created and uploaded by RolandWinkler, nominated by Yann (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work, very high educational value, and very well made. -- Yann (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Finally had time to look at it all, it's an extraordinary work, almost too much to take in. Then again it does contain Life, the Universe and Everything. ;) Could be printed on large posters to hang in classrooms. --Cart (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And all extrapolated from one piece of angel-food cake ...

Daniel Case (talk) 05:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wow! -- KTC (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann -- P999 (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's maybe a bit too much of information packed into (most of them I don't even understand). And the solar system diagram (mis)leads us into thinking it's to scale because the planets have different sizes (a bit of a shame when author's goal is to make us realise the size of the universe we live in). But it's beautiful. - Benh (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Space is big. Really big. You just won’t believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it is. I mean you may think it’s a long way down the road to the chemist’s, but that’s just peanuts to space." --Cart (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to be reading that book ;) but a French translation only... - Benh (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good choice. :) You should try the English original sometime, it has so many word-games that get lost in translation. Like it did in the Swedish version. --Cart (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support HEV $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 18:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Intended to just support, but 2 questions:
1. Has anyone checked this for accuracy? We certainly should not be promoting a scientific image if it has incorrect information. I see the file's talk page has a comment from Reaper35 pointing to one piece of incorrect information.
2. A lot of this image is a derivative of other works hosted on Commons, most prominently by Azcolvin429. Is there a procedure for recognizing our contributors whose work is then combined with others for a FP? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re 2: AFAIK not in any other way than that they and their work is mentioned on the file page like in File:Photomontage (Forggensee Panorama) -2.jpg. The names of the authors should be displayed in a similar way in this file. --Cart (talk) 09:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the authors to the description. The work by the Commoners was also derived from other files, so I went for what I could find as original authors. --Cart (talk) 10:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 11:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Camposanto Monumentale di Pisa (16813099494).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2018 at 16:11:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Bernd Thaller, uploaded and nominated by DnaX -- DnaX (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- DnaX (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a beautiful shot, but there are some subtle apparent dust spots in the sky and also what looks like some color noise in the shadows. I'd like to support but would feel more comfortable supporting this as an FP after these things are taken care of. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to do that, but I don't know if I will risk getting the picture worse using a denoise. About the dust spots, you mean in the sky? Maybe it's just a bit strange clouds --DnaX (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Cool on the clouds. In the shadows, I also saw what I thought might have been a bit of a red chromatic aberration, but I see the same reddish brown in parts of the stones in other pictures, so I deduce that the stones just look like that. If everyone else thinks the noise is de minimis, I won't insist on denoising. For the record, I'm not pixel-peeping at full size, only 300% of the size of my laptop screen. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support A feat! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 05:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 06:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I won't pixelpeep this truly awesome image to death... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martin, wise as ever. --Cart (talk) 08:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I did pixelpeep, and ... while it's not perfect (a little soft at the sides, and there's some purple CA in the hexafoils of the leftmost window that, the likely outcome of this FPC notwithstanding, should still be cleaned up), I just do not care. This is the sort of image that makes you seriously consider buying the book or the album it's used as cover art for (in fact, its noted defects do give it a more paintinglike quality). Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well, the others said it well. --Podzemnik (talk) 05:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 07:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition but poor quality. --A.Savin 14:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow composition. The scaffoldings and questionable processing (strong NR, very saturated blues) are a bit of a deal breaker. - Benh (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, overprocessed, halos along the pillars --Llez (talk) 11:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Llez -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many tone mapping artifacts as per Llez. Moreover the strong tone mapping has flattened the colours a bit. The walls on the left, which are in the shadow, are nearly as bright as the walls on the right in direct sunlight. dllu (t,c) 23:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 11:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cloud Forest, Gardens by the Bay, Singapore.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2018 at 13:53:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Singapore
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are some purple chromatic aberrations near the top of the image. Consider running defringe. Otherwise, looks great. Personally I'm always scared about exposing my camera to the moisture of a tropical rainforest. dllu (t,c) 00:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was very humid inside, but I live in a tropical area, and have never had any problem with moisture for many years with my EOS. This one is protected against humidity with tropicalization, and the body and lenses stay all year long in a dry cabinet at 40% humidity, so hopefully this compensates. Concerning the purple CAs, they had been fixed on Lightroom, but I agree that those purple were not completely off. New version uploaded now with the fix. Thanks dllu for your comment -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks good to me. dllu (t,c) 02:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've been there some time ago, was pretty breathtaking, your picture almost does justice, haha. --GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 07:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some non-sharp shadow on left down side, no wow. --Karelj (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Karelj, and also for the people taking photo in the middle. I'm very sorry Olivier LPB (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Victoria Memorial situated in Kolkata.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2018 at 14:21:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#India
Info Victoria Memorial situated in Kolkata created by Subhrajyoti07 - uploaded by Subhrajyoti07 - nominated by Subhrajyoti07 -- Subhrajyoti07 (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Subhrajyoti07 (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In general, a good capture. However, the building appears to be leaning out slightly on both the left and right side (perspective correction seems to have gone too far), and the bird on the right side is really irksome. dllu (t,c) 00:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, per dllu. Please edit accordingly. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would also suggest cropping out the modern building on the left. It's OK if the result is asymmetrical, I think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Extreme ends of the building leaning on either sides - fixed, Bird on the right side - removed, Modern building on the extreme left - removed. Overall symmetry of the picture retained. Some cropping of the original image has been done. - Subhrajyoti07 (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeDespite all the work put into this image, it still has flaws we usually don't find in FPs. The towers on the sides are still distorted, there is CA on much of them, a lot of the lawn area is unsharp, and the inside of the left tower is overexposed. The sky also is kind of patchy, similar to some QIs of mine I've had to do a lot of cleanup on to get them to that level. And I really can't tell if this could have been done any better from the beginning due to the absence of metadata. Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Odles Cisles y Mastle pinus Cembra.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2018 at 19:42:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Italy
Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yeza (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful and really well composed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, a Hasselblad X1D. My dream camera! By the way, the sky's colour is quite different on the right side when compared to the left side. Why's that? dllu (t,c) 02:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 08:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, but I wonder the same thing as dllu. --Cart (talk) 10:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 13:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Granada (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Damn son, a freaking Hasselblad... I'd prefer a bit more head space but WOW WOW. --GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong support, the first time I have ever so qualified a support !vote. I can't get over how much there is to like about this one: the way the mountains complement the irregular shapes of the trees below them, the way the grass draws us into this one, the pleasant surprise of the pink flowers, the color and detail ... I could just sit here staring at this one forever and ever. And I hear theme music. Daniel Case (talk) 05:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This comment is the best reward for every single penny I paid for this amazing machine --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per dllu.--Ermell (talk) 06:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Woooow. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 12:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Storkk (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support piling on. nice. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support great! Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 27 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Río Nenana, Healy, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-29, DD 53-56 PAN.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2018 at 21:51:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Rafting in the Nenana River, Healy, Alaska, United States. All by me, Poc o² 21:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 21:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not with this sky -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad light. The people in the raft are tiny and despite the opportunity for an exiting photo of white-water-rafting, there's no excitement in this frame at all. Is the geolocation correct? If so, the railway line should be as straight as a ruler for 9km, but here it looks like it is following round a sharp bend in the river. So again I think the cylindrical perspective is causing factual-accuracy problems with the scene, which is a problem for an educational media repository. -- Colin (talk) 07:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Colin, actually, the light is very, very good, soft and low contrast that allows very rich detail throughout the image and especially in the shadows. You actually may be talking about a bad sky which could be more interesting by increasing drama and detail to the clouds. As far as the size of the rafts and people, well, they provide good scale or proportion to the image and yes, I agree with you, it is not an exiting photograph of rafting, but maybe that was never the intention. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes the sky is the problem. While the light from an overcast sky would be good light for a photo of some shore-side rocks or for inside the woods, I don't think it is good for general scenic photo that includes 1/3 of sky in the photo. Also I'm really not at all sure what I'm looking at is reality. Both the "river bend" and the "cone-shaped hill" don't seem to exist on the google map location. I suspect both are illusions of the ultra-wide cylindrical perspective. -- Colin (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No good light.--Peulle (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin. While I was lucky enough to have sunlight and a good position when it was my turn to take pictures of people rafting on a remote far-northern river, the point there is that they were hitting the rapids at the time so there was excitement inherent in the image. For this one the rapids are right in front us yet the rafts are approaching the rapids. At least show the fun part. Daniel Case (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Poc I did a quick and dirty Lightroom adjustment to the sky, lowering exposure and increasing contrast and it does improve the sky quite a bit. Maybe you should try it. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Tomascastelazo, I tried that, too and you are probably right, but I don't think that it will save this nom...anyhow, I appreciate your help Poc o² 20:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others because of the sky, which is really oppressive to my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others, primarily light. --Karelj (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 20:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fish in the fishmarket.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2018 at 03:58:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm assuming this was cropped for compositional reasons, not downsized to look sharper. It's not extremely sharp, anyway, but it's still good at around 210% of my laptop screen's size, it's a closeup of the nearer fish, and I simply like the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a QI? ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 06:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting picture but the depth of field is too short, with many fishes being not in focus. Probably a tripod would have been useful here -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 13:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pedrete corona clara - Nyctanassa violacea 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2018 at 18:02:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am not much for having to explain photographs, but in this case I will because I think a lot of people are not really conscious of many variables that make a good photograph good beyond pixel peeping and stricktly technical issues (and here mainly centered around the file itself, in other words, too much attention on form and not substance). Mangroves are very thick vegetation environments, monochromatic (green) and visually impenetrable. Mangroves are very difficult to appreciate from the inside, so we basically look at them from the open looking in, and what we see is lots and lots of green. Hidden inside the mangroves are countless species of wild life, birds, iguanas, crocodyles, insects and plants. The mangrove is a refuge and provides cover and safety to the wildlife. Mangrove creatures are shy and keep their distance from humans as much as possible. I also notice that most pictures isolate the wildlife from their environment, and I think that to be a mistake. Wildlife and environment go together. So, in this case, some may say that the bird is too small, and yes, it is and it would be if it were a photograph of just the bird. This is a photograph of the bird and its environment, its home. The relationship of scale or space I chose was for that purpose, for if I were to concentrate on the mangrove itself the bird would be lost in the inmensity of the vegetation, and if I concentrate on the bird then the mangrove could not be appreciated. I hope this is a happy medium. -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the sake of encyclopedic clarity, there should be some more information on the file page. "Manglars" is "mangrove swamp/biome" in English but I can't understand what "Pedrete corona clara" is decribing, my Spanish is not that good. It would also be very useful to know where the photo was taken. Is it from La Manzanilla, Jalisco, Mexico, like this one? Could you please add something about this. --Cart (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (talk), I added the location to the description. As far as the name, I try to put the scientific name also in order for people to id the bird. I have no idea what it is called in english. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also also ... has it been downsized? Is there a reason for the submitted size, given that so much of the background is shown and not cut away anyway?--Peulle (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Peulle, no, it has not been downsized, cropped to achieve a certain proportion... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I totally get your point, but I think you could get a better composition and still make the point if you cropped a little more, particularly on the right (I understand head room, but the bird is not flying, so I don't think you need much head room). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ikan Kekek, that is my point, I have many photographs that are much closer, but my idea here is to represent both the complexity of the environment with relation to the bird. When one first approaches the mangrove is is just a blob of green, and as you close in the birds start appearing here and there, often briefly, and dart back to the inside. All they have to do is step back inches in order to dissapear. So my intention is to represent both, bird and vegetation in a visually pleasant proportion. This photograph here [[1]] is an example of the problem. Do you see the bird? Decent general shot of the mangrove, but too little bird.--Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm traveling and browsing with my Android right now. On this small screen, I'm not seeing a bird in the photo you linked, but I am seeing what looks to me like a beautiful composition. I'm all about the composition, from an artistic point of view. A purely utilitarian approach that's most obviously encyclopedic is good for FP on Wikipedia or possibly VI. We simply differ on this photo being an outstanding composition. (And parenthetically, as a former resident of rural Malaysia, I'm quite familiar with mangroves and used to dig for clams regularly in one with my friends.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FPC is not Wikipedia and we don't need a whole encyclopedic article to promote each nomination here. No need to convince before consideration. When a picture is really good, then it gets promoted. There are enough honest reviewers around to guarantee a large diversity of opinions. ~~Revenge~~ votes with wacky reasons are quite easily spotted, and rarely help to make one's point. But looking at this bird, it seems a bit lost among thousand of leaves. We can see the maximum length of a small telephoto 70-200 was reached, and then the picture cropped or downsized from 15 to 6,5 Mpx. Thus it gives the feeling that the photographer was unable to approach closer, but however justifies the shot with long and annoying theories. Concerning the mangrove, is the main topic this vegetation ? If yes, then there's nothing special in this green texture. And if it's the bird, then it's not big enough to appreciate the details. In any case, the sharpness is not excellent, and the light very ordinary. So for a small size like this, our promoted birds are usually much more interesting -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentBasile Morin I find your comment interesting, and to a point stupid. I will start with your suggestion that I did a revenge vote on you, which is not the case, and to call my reason for oppose wacky shows that at least you know nothing about me, which is fine. You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is far from the truth. If before writing this revenge comment you had taken the time to read what I wrote about scale and proportion, it would have saved you some time instead of lecturing me on photographic technique. Cropping is an acceptable practice used to achieve a visual objective in order to center on the message of the image, and that is what I did here. Had the display been much larger, then I would have not cropped the image the way I did, but considering the viewing scale, I find that proportion of subjects adequate for the circumstances. That was the motive of my initial comment. I just happen to like mangroves and I get to spend some time in them, and the reason for my upload was to share on the difficulty of recording both, wildlife, and mangrove visual reality. Mangroves can be both, very simple and very confusing, depending on how you approach them. From the air, mangroves are just a big blob of green, for example [[2]], closing in from the waterside, one only sees the very edge of the mangrove and not much else, for example here [[3]], but then things get a little confusing once you reach the edge, like here [[4]], and if you can find your way in a little further, the reflexions drive youi nuts, like here [[5]], but once you really step into the mangrove, this is what you see [[6]]. However, if you are lucky, you start discovering the wonderful things hidden inside, like this termite nest [[7]], and if you are really lucky, you could come across some nests and eggs and chics like here [[8]], but you better be careful, so you don´t step on some of the local creatures like this [[9]] or this [[10]]. But I guess looking for birds and crocs from afar is safer, like here [[11]] or here [[12]]. So, I will listen to your sage advice and will not bother with my annoying theories. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment During my time here at FPC, I've seen many different views on how a nomination should be presented. Some say "let the photo speak for itself", some argue that a nominator should be able to explain why a photo should be promoted, others want some explanation about the photo to better understand what is shown since not all voters read the file page and there are also those who can ask for an explanation as to why a photo is special if no info is given. I think it's up to each nominator to decide how much info they want to give when starting a nomination. --Cart (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Too many links. I wouldn't say they're "stupid", but definitely redundant and embarrassing -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 11:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and the "happy medium". The chosen approach is convincing imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Commons FPC certainly has its own style and way of dealing with photos, a way not always shared by the world outside the forum. I have tried several similar "combination nominations" before (all turned down) so I'm happy that someone else has the guts to try it. However I think the nominated category should be changed to better fit into the system here. The 'Animals' and 'Plants' categories are mostly ultra sharp mugshots of critters and growing things; this is a photo of a habitat, a mixture of both, and it is more suited for the '/Places/Natural' category. Please change if you agree with this. And don't crop it, I like the non-center placing of the bird. :) --Cart (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cart makes sense, changed. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I greatly appreciate the thoughtfulness that went into taking this picture. A great example of substance. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I fully agree with your description, but the bird is still too small, especially when considering the rather low resolution. --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:ET Amhara asv2018-02 img088 Lake Tana at Bahir Dar.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2018 at 13:19:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Interior detail of Ura Kidane Mehret Church on Zege Peninsula near Bahir Dar, Ethiopia -- All by A.Savin --A.Savin 13:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 13:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very interesting subject, but this is only a small part of it. I want to see more: File:ET Amhara asv2018-02 img087 Lake Tana at Bahir Dar.jpg. Also uneven light. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good and complete enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good painting work but the combination of highlights and shadows on this facade spoil the aesthetic of the photograph -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very nice, but unsharp in upper areas --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per Uoaei1 --Llez (talk) 11:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 3 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kagbeni Mustang-WLV-0741.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2018 at 08:32:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places
Info created by Bijay chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay chaurasia - nominated by Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 08:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 08:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a view! --Yann (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As I'm up unusually early this morning, this is not only a pleasure but quite literally a sight for sore eyes. :-) Beautiful and a very satisfying composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 13:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems like it might not work, but it does—the lines on the bottom draw us in, past the house to the top of the distant peak. Daniel Case (talk) 05:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aasish5050 (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --De728631 (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:2017-11-16 Michael Müller (Wiki Loves Parliaments 2017 in Berlin) by Sandro Halank.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2018 at 15:28:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Sandro Halank - uploaded by Sandro Halank - nominated by Sandro Halank -- Sandro Halank (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The colors seem too saturated. His skin is too pink. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This nomination reminds me those : [1], [2], [3] -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too flat light in his face. You had the softboxes mounted a bit too low (probably with their horizontal center in the height of the eyes) and that leads to a completely flat skin which looks at least odd. In portraiture with flash lights in general you put the lower end of your softboxes to the height of the nose tip. --Granada (talk) 08:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per comments made at [1]. -- Colin (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good id photo but for me too stiff and uninteresting as an FP. --Cart (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dry-blanket support It may be flat but to me this is a strength. He radiates confidence and leadership this way. Daniel Case (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case: I don't understand how you can support an image with this problems, and then oppose others which are of much better quality. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: And that's why we have aesthetics. Daniel Case (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Well-made and it certainly deserves the QI and VI badges it's already got. But otherwise ist's just another portrait to me without anything special that would set it apart from the masses. Yes, he's radiating a bit, but by far not enough to make me go "WOW!" --El Grafo (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Without voting I want to object to Granada. He has already a dark shade under his chin, set the lights still higher would strengthen this effect. In my opinion at least one of the lights should be set lower than higher to illuminate the face more even. --Stepro (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:In Alsbäck by the bus stop.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2018 at 08:58:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Sweden
Info C,u,n -- Cart (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not special enough. Hidden building and the blurry grass looks strange on the left -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The buildings are not the main subject, the place as such is. Hence the 'Places' category and not 'Architecture'. --Cart (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing special in this place IMO apart from a hidden building and a bus shelter in the shade with a tight crop -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find the light and the road embedded in greenery special. I think you and I will always differ about what we like and find special, nothing new there. --Cart (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. We both like this flower for example. And there are other valid opinions too -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You never stop, do you? Can we please have this as a forum for voting and not petty discussions and picking on words? --Cart (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I voted -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Cart (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Changing the Guard ceremony in Québec during the summer 07.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2018 at 01:56:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info All by -- The Photographer 01:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the file name/description is not quite spot on; this doesn't actually show the ceremony, it just shows one guard. It would also be nice to know specifically what kind of guard it is.--Peulle (talk) 07:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Peulle, I would oppose changing the filename. If you look at Category:2018 in Quebec City (currently) you see the full set of images taken during the Changing the Guard ceremony. It is too much to expect individual images at an event to contain the specifics in the filename, and then you lose the ability to see the set together in a list, and know the order they were taken. The description could be more specific, but the categories Category:Ceremonial Guard and Category:Royal 22e Régiment do actually say what kind of guard this is. The claim "doesn't actually show the ceremony" is false -- this is a scene from the ceremony where the framing is on one guard. I think it would be helpful if there was a specific category for the Canadian Changing of the Guard ceremony, and then that category put in Category:Events in Quebec City, rather than individual images. -- Colin (talk) 10:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poor guy! he can't see anything... ;) Yann (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A great shot of the guard (love that stubble!) undone by a distracting background. Daniel Case (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: I know that you might prefer a clean blue sky ~~like a Caribbean beach~~ background, however, the main activity of this guard is to protect the Citadelle of Quebec, and it is normal that in the background is part of the construction, an unfocused background with the appropriate use of the depth of field. --The Photographer 10:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 20:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gas flare on top of a flare stack at Preemraff Lysekil 4.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2018 at 22:33:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Fire
Info ... or a Tibanna gas flare in Cloud City on Bespin. -- Cart (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like simplicity of the composition and Wow effect created by the contrast between white pure clouds and black dirty smoke. All that on a background of the blue beautiful sky. Heat distortion is just a bonus. --Podzemnik (talk) 04:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not beautiful or particularly interesting to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per Ikan -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per others opponents, no wow. --Karelj (talk) 07:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thankfully, it's quite rare to see such black smoke from these flames. I happened to be there when this "belch" occurred. I liked the contrast as mentioned by Podzemnik, that's why I finally settled on this photo from the series. The other photo I considered was this with the clean flame and some steam: . Not sure I can offer it as an "Alt" but I can change the nom if that one is preferable. --Cart (talk) 09:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exactly per Podzemnik. The "clean flame" isn't nearly as interesting a composition. -- Colin (talk) 10:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 11:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Podzemnik -- P999 (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I actually like the clean one better. Even better might be trying to get them against a blue-hour sky to get that Blade Runner look. Daniel Case (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to be able to do some proper blue-hour or night photos of the flames and the place, but the problem is that photography is strictly forbidden on the refinery premises. There are signs every 50 meters and cc-tv. I was actually at the windfarm there to get some shots of the lighthouses out at sea when I saw the flame. Unfortunately this time a security guard spotted me. I had to put on my best smile and "Jedi mind trick" to convince him to let me keep the photos and not delete them on the spot. I have snuck in a few times before at night with only an old, pocket camera and got away with it, but now I'm in their records so I have to be nice for a while. ;) --Cart (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you'll just have to get a Phantom one of these days and see if that would work ...

That night photo does have that Blade Runner look, though. One of these days I have a goal of stopping here along the New Jersey Turnpike at night and shooting away to the east. You get that industrial landscape with the Manhattan and Jersey City skylines in the background, lights everywhere. If the power plant in the distance is putting out steam with its red lights on the smokestacks, and there's just the right amount of cloudiness and/or fog, it gets the feel of that opening shot just right (even if it doesn't look exactly like it ... really, what could?). Daniel Case (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Ikan, I don't see this as FP, sorry cart --Poc o² 07:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not going only for the easy ones. ;) I think that if we are looking at some FPCs from an educational point of view, we should also include good photos of things that are not just beautiful or pretty, otherwise we get an unbalanced representation of what the world looks like. --Cart (talk) 09:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This black smoke is depressing as this flower was depressing too. Looking at the FPs in this category Natural_phenomena#Fire, no one is particularly "pretty", but all are supposed to be aesthetically successful. I understand the word "beautiful" like this, meaning "able to provoke an emotion (of any kind)". But when the picture is depressing, then its subject must be really exceptional, so that we think "wow, it makes life more interesting" -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find the black smoke depressing, the swirls it makes against the sky form an interesting pattern, similar to a drop of ink in water. Again, your taste and mine differ; you see the smoke and I see the pattern. --Cart (talk) 11:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This evokes me pollution and bad smell. Concerning the pattern, it's brutally cut on the left -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rosa 'Innocentia' (d.j.b) 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2018 at 16:11:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Rosa #Family Rosaceae
Info Beautiful white flowering rose. Special features: very hardy, Floribunda, ideal for massive plantings-delicate perfume-compact bush-solitary, group planting, ground cover, border. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose Beautiful and simple, but noisy. Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Noise reduced. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The rose is excellent, but the blur at about 10 o'clock interrupts my eye movement. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan, could you please add a note ? I can't see this blur - Basile Morin (talk) 03:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you can. It's not a small area of dark bokeh blur. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about the background, then it looks fine to me -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We just differ. That's hardly surprising or unusual. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sharp and the lighting is very good -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good one. De728631 (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Young tabby cat showing claws.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2018 at 13:02:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family : Felidae (Felids)
Info Ok, I was photographing something else and just turned to the cat when I saw what she was doing, so the settings on the camera were wrong and I anticipate 'o'-s for DoF, but I still want to give this a try. I love the stance and line of this not-quite-kitten-not-yet-cat with its still too large paws. Thankfully, it's not my car about to get scratched. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the DoF indeed; too little is sharp. Good catch for the subject, but not an FP composition for me.--Peulle (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't support this composition, too cut-off and not harmonic. --Basotxerri (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sharp enough at 300% of my laptop screen's size, and I don't mind the back of the cat not being included - in a way, including only the front 2/3 to 3/4 of the cat emphasizes its forward motion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. When I trimmed the crop, I tried to get the head at approx. 1/3 position. --Cart (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not enough special, but pretty cat though! :) Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, she is a little beauty. Moves like mercury. Not my cat, but she tries to be, to her owner's dismay. :) --Cart (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I love cats, but no. A half cat with some disturbing black area... Yann (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Peulle, Basotxerri, and Yann -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination It was worth a shot a least since you never know. :) --Cart (talk) 09:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Passer montanus at KL (2).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2018 at 10:57:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info If at first you don't suceed, try try again. - W.E. Hickson. All by me. -- GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Info If the need to crop away the tail of the other bird in the top-left, I'll try. Or I might pass it to Graphics Lab to try to remove it?? IDK. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Try to use Lightroom's spot removal function... --Basotxerri (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral like Ikan Kekek about the object in the corner. Olivier LPB (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Strong posterization, blurred legs, some detail are lost. The quality is far below FP IMO, sorry. Very friendly, -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ It does appear overprocessed to me.--Peulle (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I quite like the image and the quality issue has been fixed, but I'm still not completely sold. I'm just really going "wow!" when I see it.--Peulle (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would support with a crop of the top. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't think it's that I'm not seeing the things that are bugging other people; I think I'm seeing them and they just don't bother me as much, especially when I look at the photo at 300% of my laptop screen's size, which probably already makes the birds larger than life. I like the sparrows, their relationship to each other (I think they're a couple, though I can't be totally sure), their stances, their looking at the camera, and the clarity is good enough for me to continue liking the photo. Of course, all that said, it's clear that edits responsive to the criticisms in this thread would be needed for this photo to actually pass here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, they are most likely a couple! They were both feeding mouth to mouth gently (as opposed to the violent snatching of sparrows when they fight for food), and the male had just dropped the bread chunk into the female (presumably)'s mouth right before I took the shot. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Re:everyone - Noted with thanks, I'll try to put down some fixes. I'm rather busy this week though. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 09:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@George Chernilevsky: @Peulle: I uploaded a file comparing the feet of the birds in the picture with the ones in the .NEF (of which screenshot was taken with UFRaw). The incredibly small amount of posterization is induced by the correcting of the CA. Nevertheless, I will try to re-process the RAW file to suit the standards of the aforementioned two gentlemen. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@George Chernilevsky: @Peulle: @Ikan Kekek: @Yann: @Basotxerri: @Olivier LPB: . Gentlemen, I have uploaded a new revision of the file with a much better crop and quoting the revision summary I wrote: "...and this version has zero sharpening. Only edit was the reduction of the CA.". Kindly review it. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 11:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 11:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's an endearing and good composition and considering you had two birdies to keep track of, I think the quality is acceptable. --Cart (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Good crop. I could stand to see just a touch of sharpening, if you could do it without damaging the photo in any other way, but I agree with Cart's comment. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle's neutral !vote. Daniel Case (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the crop has gone too far. Now there's not enough space on top. Yes I know it's a problem with the top-left dark thing, but it would be more elegant with a cut of half, removing only the darkest part of this object in the background, or a bit more, but not all. Apart from that, I agree with Ikan that a bit of sharpening would improve this last version. No vote yet, just my feeling -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Basile Morin: I'll address the issue as soon as I can. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 03:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Basile Morin: I have put a bit more headspace. @Ikan Kekek: , if the crop feels a bit too wide, I'll gladly just shave off the part of the image where the corner of the photobooming-tail is. I have also added a minute bit of sharpening. @Peulle: @Daniel Case: What about now? GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 11:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @George Chernilevsky: What about now? GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the sharpening is too much, I would gladly reduce it. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support this version, please do not reduce the sharpening -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm OK with this. It's not that obvious that we're looking at a bit of another bird's tail, we just already know it. But let's see what other people think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you want a version without the tail in the left corner, here it is in my dropbox for a while, yours if you want it. I don't work for Graphics Lab, but now and again I help out with edits if I feel like it. You've done a good job so far and might just need a small help with the finishing. I haven't touched anything else than the upper left. Cheers, --Cart (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@W.carter: , Thanks for the edit! I'll revise the file later! GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Revised the file. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@W.carter: GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Try pinging everyone again. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: I don't want to be annoying, but okay... @Peulle: @Daniel Case: . And George seems to be ignoring previous discussions, hahaha. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I remain oppose, unfortunately. Quality is better now, but below FP IMO. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --De728631 (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bee balm seedhead (70424).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2018 at 20:56:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info Bee balm seed head (Monarda didyma). own work — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good. May be a little bit too dark, but max. 1/3 step. --XRay ^talk 10:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Uploaded a new version, a little bit brighter. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sometimes flowers can be beautiful when they come in just earth tones. Daniel Case (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Soothing... --Cart (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel -- P999 (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --СССР (talk) 02:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Augustins - Velleda - Laurent Marqueste 2004 1 431.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2018 at 17:07:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created and uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus, nominated by Yann (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Iso 100 would have been better than iso 1000, though fortunately the noise seems acceptable here -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The grand staircase Darcy is always in a dim light that gives all the statues that live there, an irreel aspect proper to the scenography of the nineteenth century. To make photographs is the worst thing but I hope he stays a long time as he is. Thanks to Yann for this nomination. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk)
Support Due to the lightning conditions mentioned above --Llez (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm just realizing there's a big red halo behind the statue on its left side. Not very elegant. Fixable ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The red brick wall behind the statue, colors the edge of the statue. The red halo remembers the wall and gives relief. He remains discreet but wanted. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 18:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Ko Poda beach, Ko Ma Tang Ming, Thailand 2018 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2018 at 08:48:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info View on the high rock monument in sea Ko Ma Tang Ming from the beach of the island Ko Poda in Thailand. Created, uploaded band nominated by Karelj -- Karelj (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment tilted -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~~Horizon is tilted~~, the boat to the left is cut and there is a diagonal shadow across the down left corner. --Cart (talk) 09:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart and I think the rock in the water and the boats are too near to each other, it looks unbalanced. --Basotxerri (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd very likely support this if you straightened the horizon, because what I care most about is how my eye moves around the picture plane. Painters routinely cut all sorts of things, so I don't care if a photographer does, as long as the composition works for me, and this one does. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cart, especially because of this diagonal shadow (certainly induced by an intrusive wire in the near foreground), that can hardly be fixed -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I rotated it. Yann (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Cart. I can see what you were thinking, but it didn't come off quite like you had hoped. Daniel Case (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I differ with everyone on this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tuinen Mien Ruys (actm) 15.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2018 at 05:42:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Trollius chinensis. 'Golden Queen'. #Family Ranunculaceae.
Info Trollius chinensis 'Golden Queen', striking flower with warm orange color. Location: Mien Ruys Gardens. All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This was on my list of possible FP nominations. Beautiful flower, nice warm light, and I like that the stem is curved. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Poc o² 07:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 09:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI but not FP to me. Too ordinary and a bit unbalanced composition and ground brown colour and petal? on the ground are disturbing, sorry. --Laitche (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P999 (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support Some hints of posterization on the left petal, but not enough to be a dealbreaker. Daniel Case (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Northern Lights Belarus.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2018 at 14:09:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Natural phenomena
Info I came across this picture of the northern lights in Belarus while doing some research about threshold of originality. Mr. Motolko took this photo in 2015 and shared it via various websites. The next day, a state-run tv network used it in a broadcast, noting the similarities between the colors and the national flag. They didn't ask permission, credit him, etc. Unsettled by his work turning into government propaganda, he filed suit. In the case that followed, this image was found to have no copyright protection, being just a record of a "social event". (source). It looks like he uploaded a few images to Commons, too. Typically I would be wary of material uploaded elsewhere first, but given the copyright situation it likely doesn't matter, for better or worse. In any event, it's pretty spectacular. created/uploaded by Anton Motolko, nominated by me — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality isn't good, sorry... --A.Savin 18:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm I may have nominated hastily. Thought I remembered similar FP having more motion blur/noise than they do. I'll wait for a few more people to weigh in before withdrawing, though. The overall effect is quite nice, after all. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per A. Savin. Daniel Case (talk) 02:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support yep, the quality isn't perfect. It's still an awesome photo, imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very good potential, but mild CA and heavy star trailing makes me feel that the picture does not have enough quality. -- Gerifalte _Del Sabana 06:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vieux-Québec, Québec city, Canadá 001.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2018 at 03:14:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info All by -- The Photographer 03:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you please explain why you name this picture „Vieux-Québec“?--Christof46 (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was taken in a area called "Vieux-Québec" (Old Québec) --The Photographer 01:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Something about it just works for me. Daniel Case (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The foreground concept is OK (though the person facing totally away is less good than if the were at an angle). But the distant shore isn't appealing and the redbox rather too central in the composition for me. -- Colin (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I like most about this picture is that it shows a Québec face that exists, depression, lonely people, suicide is a serious problem here. Another thing that I liked were the colors of that day, the tonality was similar to Dunkirk. Definitely the red box distracts. Thanks for your review --The Photographer 16:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's bleak. I had assumed she'd just stopped to eat her sandwiches. -- Colin (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that no animal has died preparing the her sandwiches. Seriously speaking, many times we project what we have inside ourselves, establishing the sufficient elements for a real connection is the goal. --The Photographer 17:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Per Colin The Photographer 23:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Willi Resetarits (Die öffentliche bessere Medienenquete, Wien 2018) b.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2018 at 23:06:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Tsui -- Tsui (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tsui (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good picture but no FP candidate for me--Ermell (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it's a VI and QI but not an FP.--Peulle (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Now this one doesn't work as an FP for me. The subject is a singer, and while we certainly don't need to see him singing for a portrait of him to be good, I get no sense of him that might suggest he's a singer, or some creative person who might show up at a protest rally to save the national broadcasting system. Daniel Case (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's your point of view, so be it. Though I honestly don't get it. This is a portrait. There are other pictures of him singing, there will be a few of him speaking an singing on stage at this occasion, but this is one is meant to be a portrait. Looking at Commons:Featured_pictures/People#Portrait almost all of the images there do not show the people at work or doing what made them famous (and many of them have issues with sharpness, color, but that's another discussion). --Tsui (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsui: It's not that he's not singing; it's just that this portrait looks like he's, well, no one special. Daniel Case (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lago Plateado, Parque nacional y reserva Wrangell-San Elías, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-22, DD 135.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2018 at 20:41:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Silver Lake during dusk, Wrangell–St. Elias National Park and Preserve, Alaska, United States. All by me, Poc o² 20:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 20:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --De728631 (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful, though visible noise should really be reduced. Still support because of the huge size -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also tilted +0,7° -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not so sure whether this is actually tilted. I've had the same problem in some of my landscape shots where the shaping of the shoreline looked like the image was tilted when it wasn't. Poco a poco will know :-) --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Checked on Photoshop : just draw a horizontal line at the exact middle of the reflection, equidistant from the top and the bottom of these black trees mirroring, and the tilt becomes obvious -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also 2 of Poco's last nominations were similarly tilted before they got corrected [1] [2] -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Basile. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 04:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 05:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jaw dropping, especially after the new revision. -- GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 06:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite the somewhat disturbing image noise but with excellent mood. --Ermell (talk) 06:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 09:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about tilt

Support It is a lovely scene but there are problems with the angles. I don't think it is tilt (or not much) but more distortion towards the sides. A false horizon like we have here is not a useful guide. My understanding of the optics is that you should be able to draw a vertical line down from an element above the water and its reflection in the water and it will be aligned. Expect small variation with ripples and the reflection may be vertically longer or shorter depending on whether the element is vertical, tilted towards you or tilted away from you, but otherwise symmetrical because water is level and flat. The trees and reeds in the middle of the frame look close to vertical but as you go any distance to the left or right, they lean considerably. And even ignoring reflection, you can see it in the trees where they lean out of the frame. This might be because the camera wasn't held level, or because of lens distortion or if this is a stitch then projection distortions. I think it most probably the former, and then there's not much we can do other than send Poco back to Alaska. -- Colin (talk) 09:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This explanation is not valid to me. I studied optics at the university and think the problem is much more simple : there's a tilt of +0,7° just because the camera was leaning to the right. Not necessary to go back to Alaska and I wish Poco will understand and honestly fix that with good faith and good will. It's not a big mistake, it just gives a disturbing appearance. True the camera was also orientated top-down, creating the reciprocal inclination of the trees at both extremities, but this parameter has absolutely no influence on the aspect of the leaning horizon. Yes, this mirror line can be likened to a real horizon, because it's far enough from the observer, and straight like a ruler at 1:1. If this line was curved, due to important relief, then it would be different. But here it's tilted. I remember how long and exausting was this discussion Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:HDMY_Dannebrog_(A540)_2017-08-16.jpg before Colin finally understands the optics and fixes the issue in a similar situation, so I really hope we can avoid such endless debate this time -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, there was a tilt, but I came to the conclusion that I achieved the best result overall tilting +0,3°. I have also improved the crop, reduced the noise and applied a vertical perspective correction to reduce the distortion on both sides. The result is a kind of compromise because, using always the stocks over the water and their reflexion as a reference that should be aligned, that didn't match 100% at the same time in the middle and on both sides. Applying +0,7° would increase the deviation in the middle too much, where I believe that it should be perfectly aligned (as it was in the previous version), but somehow guided to bigger deviations in one side versus the other. As said, I will not manage to get everything perfectly aligned without distorting the image with Photoshop, what I can do anyhow if that is the wish of the reviewers. That would be still easier than going back to Alaska :) --Poc o² 11:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Improved -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basile, could you try hard to discuss issues with images without making personal attacks, otherwise you are just generating a list of reasons to block you. So are you claiming that a line through the mid-point of a reflection should be horizontal level? File:Vic-la-Gardiole, Hérault 14.jpg, File:Koettmannsdorf Unterschlossberg Stausee und Strassenbruecke 03032015 0234.jpg and File:Josselin Château Evening Light Reflected 2016-08-15 WLM.jpg suggest not. Or are you claiming the distant shore is close enough to perpendicular that it can be used like a horizon? Well I don't know how you can think that is a useful guide for small tilts because you have no way to know the angle of that shore. There is no horizon on this image. You cannot use any horizontal line here to determine the angle. The only line you can use to determine tilt is vertical reflection. This is also why, when making stitched photos, we use vertical control points, and can only use horizontal control points if the horizontal line is actually perpendicular to the camera angle-of-view. As Poco noted, a combination of vertical perspective correction and small tilt improved (but hasn't fully corrected) the problems, and the guide is vertical mirror lines. -- Colin (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problem fixed -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wonderful blue. --Laitche (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support As with the other one from this series I promoted to QI, it isn't perfect (there's noise) but I just love the mood, the bluest of moods I've ever seen in an image. Daniel Case (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 09:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Parque estatal Chugach, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-22, DD 77.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2018 at 20:24:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Aerial view of a glacier from the top in Chugach State Park, Alaska, United States. All by me, Poc o² 20:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 20:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better than the other one, actually: there's a greater variety of colors, the ice is better and the edges of the image, while still not perfect, are forgivable in this one. Daniel Case (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 05:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - An amazing sight and really well captured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 19:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washbasins of the restrooms in Crowne Plaza Vientiane.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2018 at 00:56:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Laos
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I would simply call these sinks. They aren't basins, at least in my version of English. But this is certainly a very good photo of a fine motif. I'm glad you had the idea. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose It's a good idea and it's clean and glitzy but the hand dryer blows the composition for me. (pardon the pun) Yes, I know it is a fixture part of a restroom and you can't remove it from the wall, but still it bugs me since everything else is so symmetrical. Sorry. --Cart (talk) 13:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before uploading it, I wondered if I should change the frame and cut both sides to make this picture more symmetrical. Finally I decided to keep these elements because of the reflections in the mirror. It's symmetrical but more creative like this -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really do not find any encyclopedic value to this image. One more restroom. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this argument. This picture could easily illustrate an encyclopedic article about the hotel. But moreover, Commons is not an encyclopedia. Do you think your FP photo of construction workers seen through a large pipe is of more obvious encyclopedic value than this? I would think the contrary. But it is an excellent work of art, and that's the main point. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Really, can someone explain to me the redeeming qualities of this ordinary photograph in terms of visual elements, or context? Other than being a photograph of a restroom, what does it say? How is it that this represents anything of photographic value? Where is the aesthetics? The basic foundation of a photograph and photographic subjects have to do with their intrinsic qualities such a form, shape, color, texture, perspective, rythm, balance, etc., etc., and if we rise above the visual qualities, then we start exploring context and subjective values, like representation of a drama, event, condition, situation, etc. So I really would like to know what are those qualities here? The emperor has no clothes... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you think so, no-one will convince you otherwise. But for the hell of it: It's a beautiful motif, perfectly captured, so the form is satisfyingly restful, with the one exception that can't be helped being the electric hand dryer on the wall. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentIkan Kekek I rarely oppose photographs here, and when I do, I expose the reason for my oppose. My ratio support vs oppose must be 100-1, and that is easy to verify. My opposes also are somewhat impulsive but always based on photographic criteria, and in this rare occasion I get a revenge review and a lesson on my shotcomings as a photographer from Basile. I try to stay within the scope of Commons and base my decision on the scope, but also I always go to my bottom line question, and that is if all else fails as far as the scope is concerned, whether the image in question has at least a decorative value that would make someone, somewhere download the photograph and print it just because it is a pretty photograph and display it somewhere. Would I download, print and frame this photograph of whatever it is, mirrors? walls? sinks? Patterns? Whatever it is of, no, and I wonder if anyone would. Would you? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may have thought I was picking on you. Not so. A bunch of people make the same argument about a photo not being encyclopedic, and that's what I don't understand at Commons FPC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

« Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects. This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project. » written on top of this current page Featured picture candidate policy (point number 7). Even though, this picture has an indisputable encyclopedic value, as Ikan notices. It could be used in great articles such as Sink for example, Crowne Plaza, Luxury resorts, Wide-angle lens, etc. Thus I don't find this review constructive. But because several nominations of Tomascastelazo failed recently due to my reasoned contributions (1) (2) (3), I assume this impulsive comment is rather an instinctive reaction induced by these small annoyances. Not clever, but "1 time out of 100" is definitely better than always :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Basile Morin really, get a life, or at least get over this…. I will reply to this post just for sport… and I start by quoting from the Project Scope, which is above whatever else may be declared in sub pages.

The Aim of Wikimedia Commons is:

The aim of Wikimedia Commons is to provide a media file repository:

• that makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all, and

• that acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation.

The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative". (So, where is the beef here? What is the argument for this providing knowledge; instructional or informative?)

And further down the page is

Uploaded files are within scope only if they comply with all of the following conditions. Every file:

• Must be a media file.

• Must be of an allowable free file format.

• Must be freely licensed or public domain.

• Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose.

• Must not contain only excluded educational content.

Perhaps it would be good for you to take a look…

Your assertion that your image has an “undisputable encyclopedic value” is nonsense, starting by the fact that I, as a member of this community, do not find it so. So your argument is disputable by at least one honest oppose. Your argument is like a trump-like demagoguery when he says things like “everyone knows this or that” in order to boost his arguments (or yours) and gives absolutely no evidence of his assertions.

I differ with you about the Crown Plaza article being great. Another Trumpism. It is just a technical article that has absolutely no transcendent qualities, educational or otherwise. Kind of a promotional brochure. Luxury resorts? Well, I think that there are much much better examples of photographs that capture the essence of luxury. I really doubt that this photograph depicts luxury, come on man, who are you kidding? One cannot even tell they are sinks!

Wide angle photography, again, if this were an expression of the possibilities of wide angle photography, we are really screwed… This is a master example of wide angle photography by a real photographer [[13]].

Now, you say in another trump-like style about the great sink article… to begin with, if this were a photograph of a sink, well, I would expect a photograph of a sink, not a story about a sink being hidden there somewhere. The sinks occupy perhaps 3-5% of the image area, and taken in such an angle that it is really hard to tell what they are. Much worse that that bird picture being too small in its environment. This photograph is basically of walls, perspective, rhythm, and a cut off hand dryier, but sinks? I just don´t see them. And the picture as an example of graphic qualities is just not there. If this is the best we can offer in those elements, again, we are in visual misery. This is and educational photograph of a sink [[14]]. How does this photograph aligns with the aim of Commons as far as being educational in any way is really beyond my capacity to reason, maybe I am just dumb.

It is funny how you zoom in on one oppose of mine and your opposes on several of my photographs, but fail to account for the many supports that I have given you when credit is due, so I don´t understand your trump-like tantrum. You can oppose my photographs anytime, for whatever reason you like, founded or unfounded, for revenge or for pleasure or for the pleasure of revenge...

If your photograph is featured, which looks like it will, we´ll see how many votes it gets at the Picture of the Year. That will be a very interesting metric. I bet you it will easily make it to the bottom 30.

And BTW, I suggest that you spend more time on your photography as opposed to playing psychologist ;)

Have a nice weekend!

--Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[No] Four times the word "Trump" in a review concerning a washbasin. Too many "trump", "trumpism" and "trump-like" in this excessively long comment. Pathetic Good night -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I was thinking the same thing as Cart.--Peulle (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support While I suppose the dryer could be cloned out, it does not detract from the symmetry of this space enough to ruin the image for me. Besides, I think it would be great to have an FP of a public restroom interior. Daniel Case (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did you clone out yourself? How come you're not in the mirror in the middle? Just curious. --Podzemnik (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was not behind, only my camera was in the mirror, using a self-timer. And it's written in the file page with the template retouched picture : "the reflection of the camera in the mirror has been removed" -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Today we learn that Basile is a vampire! :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That explains a lot! --Cart (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, I see it now, I should have read the description better :) Thank you! Support --Podzemnik (talk) 05:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't mind removing the reflection of the camera (in fact, I appreciate it), but since it's noticeably missing, my attention was drawn to its absence. That's when I saw that the reflection of your tripod legs is still visible below the middle sink. May be a little more challenging to remove neatly, but, to me at least, it is distracting given the missing camera. Would support otherwise. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge is always a pleasure under constructive suggestions. Done Thanks Rhododendrites for your comment -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Good. And got the shadows, too. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding shot. Well captured and processed. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rosa 'Kent' (d.j.b) 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2018 at 14:40:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Rosa #Family Rosaceae
Info Rosa 'Kent' has half-filled white flowers with yellow stamens on a bushy shrub that cools well. This very strong and healthy rose has green fine leaves. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --De728631 (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Striated Heron (Butorides striata) @ Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (2).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2018 at 05:51:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes#Family : Ardeidae (Herons)
Info All by me. -- GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 05:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain from voting as the nominator. -- GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 05:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very detailed, clear and very aesthetic.--Ermell (talk) 06:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yeah, that's good and very well labeled. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ermell -- P999 (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ermell. Daniel Case (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful!!! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 09:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit dark, but still very good --A.Savin 12:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 12:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 13:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Torso kuros Moscato Attica National Archaeological Museum of Athens left.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2018 at 07:46:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The only thing I see here is the shadow. And this dark shape is quite boring. Also noisy picture with too many unsharp areas -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting -- KTC (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. I've shot this statue and others in the museum and I know how hard it is, so if you get one really good one, it probably is a good FP candidate.--Peulle (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Basotxerri (talk) 07:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others; shadow's inclusion is understandable but it is nonetheless distracting, it seems to want to be the subject. Also noisy and unsharp per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wat Si Saket in its paved courtyard, Vientiane, Laos.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2018 at 10:06:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Laos
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much foreground. 25% of the image is foreground, too much. Weird wide angle distortion. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seriously deformed --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I was looking at this one earlier and the shape just doesn't seem right, somehow.--Peulle (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination and may renominate this file another day, though. Because honestly I don't find abnormal these deformations for such a large view, like here 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. But let's talk about this next time -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wien, Prater, Riesenrad -- 2018 -- 3161.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2018 at 08:43:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Austria
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 08:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 08:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a good photo but this off-centred composition isn't working for me.--Peulle (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mild support I don't know ... for me it works by being surprising. Daniel Case (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Definitely worth trying and of course with thought behind it, but per Peulle. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm missing the "wow" effect and agree with Peulle, too. De728631 (talk) 22:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 13:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Tybo2 (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - For me the crop does not seem ideal for a ferris wheel during the daytime (i.e. without the "wow" that comes along with the same subject lit up at night). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colombo Express in Altenwerder at night-799096.jpeg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2018 at 13:59:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Reflections
Info A nightly image from the port of Hamburg, Germany. Created by Martin Damboldt - uploaded and nominated by De728631 -- De728631 (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- De728631 (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The photo is tilted, should be corrected. --Cart (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Picture rotated -0.6°. PawełMM (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support PawełMM (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good wow factor. :)--Peulle (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
regretful oppose nothing's really sharp, sorry. Also, please do clone out the stair trails --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To my understanding, a loss of sharpness will always come along with overexposure. Judging from the EXIF and the general appearance, this was intentionally overexposed in order to get the blurred lights, so sharpness was never the goal in the first place. De728631 (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Martin, I also think the bottom and right crop are a bit tight. Sorry. --Cart (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThe bottom crop is alright in my opinion because it keeps the ship including the superstructure centred within the height of the frame. Also, there has to be a certain asymmetry for natural reasons because the reflections are optically extended compared to the real length of the crane beams, which requires more space in the lower half of the frame as opposed to the upper half that is filled by a good portion of "empty" sky. I viewed the photo in the Commons:CropTool and it turned out that the vertical arrangement corresponds well to the rule of thirds. Cropping more on the right edge to create a horizontally centered image would always leave you with at least one crane cut, which would probably be really disturbing. And had the photographer moved the entire frame more to the right to get symmetrical borders next to the outer cranes, the ship would have been crammed too much into the left half of the total image. So I think the current arrangement is really well-made. De728631 (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Martin and Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 03:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others --Llez (talk) 11:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Tybo2 (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:ET Bahir Dar asv2018-02 img07 Blue Nile at the bridge.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2018 at 12:21:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family_:_Phalacrocoracidae_(Cormorants)
Info Reed cormorant at the Blue Nile in Bahir Dar, Ethiopia ---- all by A.Savin --A.Savin 12:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 12:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment good quality as usual+good light but background prevent the image to be out of standing. Still a good image. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; background's too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel Case. Pity. --Kreuz schnabel 06:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Forest road Slavne 2017 G8.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2018 at 11:10:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Ukraine
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
weak support great mood. The snow could be a tad whiter, though --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --СССР (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 09:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support A nice picture to see after a hot summer week ... Daniel Case (talk) 14:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - There are a lot of pretty lines and shapes in this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan -- P999 (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 23:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very pleasent for the eyes to glide into that forest Poc o² 18:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wien, Volksgarten, Theseustempel -- 2018 -- 3128.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2018 at 08:45:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Austria
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 08:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 08:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Eye-catching -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ support First thought through my mind wasn't "wow", it was "Hot damn!". Amazing shot, XRay. However, the pillars are slightly overexposed. I'd give a full support if that can be fixed! -- GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GerifalteDelSabana, please don't use the 'weak', 'strong' or any other fancy templates when voting since FPCBot can't read those. Use only {{s}} or {{o}} with the piping. I have fixed that for you in this vote. --Cart (talk) 05:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. It's fixed now. --XRay ^talk 13:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support A pleasing abstraction. Daniel Case (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Good but not great to me, maybe because we don't see the tops of the pillars. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but IMO the composition does not work with the top of the pillars (and the roof and the sky). --XRay ^talk 08:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Ikan. --Karelj (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMHO the perspective is wrong. You can see the columuns are conical but the shape of the partly visible columns left and right are parallel to the border. Also in consequence of this the left and the right of the completly visible columns are leaning to the center. --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC) --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed @Berthold Werner: You're right. It's fixed now. :-) Hopefully that was the only reason for a contra vote. --XRay ^talk 09:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support J e e 13:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could work well as B&W, too. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try it within the next days. Thanks. --XRay ^talk 11:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - pleasing symmetry (apart from that wall's edge on the left side -- ask them to rebuild it plz :) ), and the bright white columns in front of the light gradient on the wall behind them makes it pop. IMO it would be better with a little more of the columns on the edges or with them cropped out completely, but we're a little late in the nom for edits anyway. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. After fixing the verticals there another crop with more columns isn't possible. --XRay ^talk 11:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 13:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Perrocallejero1-Tandil.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2018 at 21:16:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora
Info all by me -- Ezarateesteban 21:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 21:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me, the dog looks the wrong way for this to really wow me.--Peulle (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The dog isn't in an interesting place, nor is it doing anything interesting. dllu (t,c) 00:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. Perfectly good photo but no wow. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I recently opposed a similar dog as QI. Unsharp. Also per Peulle -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not FP --Atamari (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination thanks Ezarateesteban 11:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cypripedium acaule - Henvey Inlet1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2018 at 13:58:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family : Orchidaceae
Info - all by me -- СССР (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- СССР (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question about the size: was this taken as a landscape and then the sides cropped later? If so, why not shoot it as a portrait?--Peulle (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, that would've been better, I agree. This was my first ever experience shooting while crawling and being bitten by an enormous cloud of bloodsuckers, so unfortunately, I wasn't fully concentrated on the task :-) СССР (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I mean, I'm torn here, because on the one hand it is good, but on the other hand I can't stop thinking about what could have been ... --Peulle (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I guess the light, shape of the flower, angle and everything would have been sort of the same if the photo had been larger. The image quality might even have been worse since it's much harder to handle the camera hand-held in portrait position (especially when crawling). Many times, it's not until we get home and go through the photos on the computer that we realize we have something that might work on FPC, we can surprise ourselves and we work with what we have. The photo is still large enough and in no way smaller than other landscape format photos of flowers that have been cropped to portrait here at FPC. Btw, are there any good cameras where you can just flip a switch to get the orientation you want, without turning the camera, with no loss of size? --Cart (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That switch would have to turn the image sensor by 90 degrees... so, no... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or a prism could rotate the optics before hitting the sensor. If there is a camera manufacturer reading this, I want a camera with a 35x35 square sensor and a three-options switch, please. :) --Cart (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Suffers a bit from being so small, but not enough to make me oppose. Daniel Case (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 10:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P999 (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Leichtathletik Gala Linz 2018 pole vault Preiner Katrin-5628.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2018 at 19:41:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created - uploaded by Isiwal - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good image. -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! The lines! I love the combination of pearl earrings and track spikes. --Cart (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes! --Yann (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now that is a great shot. Very well captured. :)--Peulle (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Man! --Podzemnik (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Awesome -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 07:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 08:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 09:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support outstanding --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 14:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing sharpness for a sports photo --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atamari (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Nattes à chat (talk) 11:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 23:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 30 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:Mermaid Parade (60132).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2018 at 20:58:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info Man with a rainbow beard at this year's Coney Island Mermaid Parade. own work. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support At thumb it looks a bit too bright (highlights) but in larger formats it's ok. --Cart (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support colorful as like as Basile Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 04:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the image is great, but I'm holding off my support vote until the image page is improved. Nowhere, neither in the file name nor the description, does it say that this is a man depicted during the parade, and that's not accurate enough for me.--Peulle (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peulle: Thanks. It's true I used the same description for all of those uploads and didn't go back to update. Done — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support FPs demand accuracy. :)--Peulle (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This looks distorted (huge nose) due to wide angle lens --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

40mm (equivalent full frame) is not a wide angle, see en:Wide-angle_lens#Angle_of_view. Moreover, this photo seems to be a crop, from 16 Mpx to 6,3 Mpx, which means that for the same shot at full size, the equivalent focal lens would be root(16/6,3)x40mm = 63 mm, perfect -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basile Morin, my money is that this is a crop of a horizontal aspect photo. If so, the maths comes to a 48mm lens. Whether 48 or 63, neither are good choices for a head-only portrait. The recommended length for that is 85, 100 or 135 lenses. Maths aside, the result is a big close nose and small far ears. And that's not a feature of the focal length but simply about camera-to-subject distance. The longer focal length simply lets you stand further back. -- Colin (talk) 08:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. My money is that this is a crop of a horizontal aspect photo too, BUT then the lost space is exactly the same, and the math correct : 63mm, not 48mm. And 63mm is very near the "perfection", see en:Portrait_photography. In addition, a wide angle in this particular situation would be a perfectly legitimate choice, because it's a funny picture, so such distorsions would add something extra, like for the comic actor Jimmy Durante who naturally had a big nose and that all the photographers shot very close. But to see comparisons face aspect vs focal length. Best -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you're trying to work out with the maths is the equivalent lens that would have created this image, which is in portrait orientation, were it uncropped and taken holding the camera in the desired orientation. So, your maths is wrong, if the crop is what we guess. I don't get my advice on portrait photography from Wikipedia, I have some books by real experts. The pro's take portait photos in portrait orientation and use significantly longer lenses. There is a difference between a head-and-shoulders upper-body portrait, where 70mm would be your minimum and 85 better, and a close head-only crop, where 85 would be your minimum and 100+ better. 48 and 63 are a million miles away from "very near perfection". Also, please never link to raw images on Pinterest -- that's a total copyright theft there because that work is copyright Stephen Eastwood and he should be credited. The beard is funny; his expression is not. The "distortion is funny" card isn't a get-out-of-jail free for basic mistakes. Even a man with a colourful beard deserves to have a flattering photo featured on Commons. I don't like laughing at strangers. -- Colin (talk) 09:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't like laughing at strangers "

-- Basile Morin (talk) 09:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Rainbow beard and mustache for the win! Uoaei1, many New Yorkers have noses this big if not bigger. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject is great but the portrait isn't. As noted above, the camera is too close to the subject to give flattering facial proportions. Angle of view is a little low, like he is taller than you and you are close, looking up. Were you holding the camera out in front of you rather than to your eye? There's a dark diagonal line coming out of his head. His expression is passive, whereas I'd expect a festival photo to show some joy and engagement. -- Colin (talk) 08:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And some serious here also : File:Gilles_Defacque_au_musée.jpg -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Uoaei1, Colin, and Basile Morin: Thanks for the comments. Here's some background: It was taken with an Olympus E-M5 mii MFT camera with the Panasonic Lumix G II 20mm f1.7 prime lens (so yeah, equivalent to 40mm FF). The original orientation is in fact vertical. I would estimate the subject and I are close to the same height, but I held the camera level with the beard and tilted slightly upward. I took a few pictures in quick succession. There's one of him smiling, but it's kind of an awkward mouth-only picture-taking half-smile and I didn't bother to upload it. It's cropped because the background was lousy and, again, it's really all about that beard. This was in an auditorium on Coney Island that served both as one of the parade's staging areas and the "photographer's pass" area. Not a great setting for this kind of subject if you ask me, but it's the only place where you can take pictures of the parade marchers standing still. Maybe next year I'll sneak in a backdrop/stand. :) You can get a better idea of the background (and proportions) in this other picture of him. He's smiling in that one, but the background is rough, and while the pun made me smirk, it's again, all about that beard. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Compared to the other image, the mermaid aspect is mostly lost on this one, leaving just an LGBT beard parade :-). And he looks much happier to be photographed in the other. But the background sucks in that one. -- Colin (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that this image doesn't really capture the nautical theme, but I don't know if the context matters all that much in this case. I'd be just as happy to see a guy with a rainbow beard walking down the street. :) (and even if the other one were a good picture I wouldn't be nominating it. almost didn't upload it -- not because it's cheesy, but because it's basically an ad for Tide). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Karelj (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Orange buoy in water.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2018 at 20:59:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info Portrait of a mooring buoy. C,u,n by -- Cart (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another image so emblematic of your eye ... Daniel Case (talk) 05:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 06:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support It took a while but the simplicity of the picture really grew on me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a plastic thing on the water, no wow. --Karelj (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject is too simple... --Laitche (talk) 11:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simple but great.... --Σπάρτακος (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did not understand the beauty of this picture the first time. However, the blue and black water pattern + the bright main object give a perfect impression. So, Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, I cannot understand Pablo Picasso's some works as well:) --Laitche (talk) 22:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 13:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Laitche. Sorry cart, this one isn't talking to me, either --Poc o² 18:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Poco.--Ermell (talk) 07:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Puerto de Mogán, May 2018 -02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2018 at 20:06:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places#Spain
Info Panorama of Puerto de Mogán, Gran Canaria, or "A lesson in absurdity: Why man and landscape cannot coexist peacefully." . To quote en:wp: "Puerto de Mogán is a picturesque resort and fishing village in the municipality of Mogán (...). It attracts many tourists either to stay or on day-visits. Canals linking the marina to the fishing harbour have led to it being nicknamed "Little Venice" or the "Venice of the Canaries". Its beach (Mogan beach or playa de Mogan) has a good reputation." What en:wp doesn't elaborate on, unlike de:wp: the former fishing village was radically turned into a truly postmodern project about 30 years ago. The beach: artificial. The marina: artificial. "Venice": newly built and for tourists only. The brutalist hotels in the background, brutally hewn into the rock, give "brutalism" an obvious connotation. Don't get me wrong, Puerto de Mogán presented itself very friendly, pleasantly, and peacefully to me. It's just that you shouldn't reflect too much on your own role as a tourist in a place like that... All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You were, unfortunately, more successful in capturing the contradictions of this place in this image than you realized, to the point that it is hard to decide what the subject is. The rock cliffs? Maybe, but they're competing with the "fishing village", which is itself cropped awkwardly. Daniel Case (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~I withdraw my nomination~~ Daniel has a point. Besides, I guess FPC doesn't really serve as a forum for discussions of pictures and approaches like this one --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shame you withdrew. I enjoyed reading your comments and thoughts. Perhaps it could have done with a little wider framing to get in more of the town. I don't see that "capturing the contradictions" is a flaw at all. -- Colin (talk) 07:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on all counts. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Colin, Ikan Kekek, I've unwithdrawn the nom... Yep, a wider framing would have been beneficial - but technically not really advisable without stitching and I didn't have my tripod available that day. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that if you crop out the "red things" at the bottom, it will look more coherent and harmonious. That area is also overly bright. I'll add a note. Perhaps as an Alt since the original is already a QI and VI. --Cart (talk) 09:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done this cleary improves the image - an alt isn't necessary imo. Thanks Cart. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Got lost with the introduction, sorry, too complicated -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like intros, don't read them. Nobody is forcing you to do that. Look at the picture instead and let it speak for itself. --Cart (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I don't care that much about the old vs new in the photo, I look at the lines and they became more pronounced after the crop. Particularly the shoreline. The negative angle of the cliff side matches the positive angle of the fishing village. Like someone took a giant cut in the land and tore it apart to make room for the circular beach in between. :) --Cart (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Crop improved. I went to Gran Canaria a long time ago. Not my kind of holiday destination but we wanted some sun in November. Got the sun but the hotel was ****. -- Colin (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not my usual kind of holiday destination either, Colin... but with my wife being pregnant, another trip to Japan or the US wasn't a real option this summer. That being said, Gran Canaria offered us two really pleasant weeks that we enjoyed a lot. Luckily our hotel was more than ok --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well, that is good news! Congratulations to the parents-to-be! Hope you will still have a couple of minutes over for this forum after the new family member has arrived. Though I wouldn't count on it. ;) --Cart (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cart! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --XRay ^talk 06:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Interesting enough for me, and certainly high quality. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was on the other side some time ago --Llez (talk) 07:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 09:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:India 1862 One Mohur.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2018 at 00:18:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by National Numismatic Collection, uploaded by Godot13, nominated by Yann (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Info British India, One mohur (1862), depicting Queen Victoria, gold.
Support -- Yann (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice historic piece. --Peulle (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 08:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support De728631 (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Framing is too narrow IMO. Needs much more black space around the coins. --Code (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That can be added with CSS. However it can't be removed, if one wants narrower space. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it could be removed if someone wanted a narrower space. However, we judge the photos the way they are and not the way someone could possibly modify them. --Code (talk) 19:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it can't be removed with CSS. Yann (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tozina (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 10:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 23:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Aurora in Abisko near Torneträsk.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2018 at 10:55:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Aurora
Info The winner of WLE 2018 in Sweden. What I really like about this photo is that, unlike many other photos of the aurora, this does not seem to have gone through some extensive and enhancing post-processing. I find that refreshing. The colors, brightness and hues are exactly as I remember them when seeing auroras in the north of Sweden. Created and uploaded by Pavel.shyshkouski - nominated by W.carter -- Cart (talk) 10:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 10:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Enchanting. -- GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 11:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Yann (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a hot pixel in the snow that should be fixed. --Basotxerri (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed "Fallen star" fixed. Thanks for noticing. --Cart (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Peulle (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --СССР (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. -- Colin (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Awesome photo, fantastic quality for an aurora photo! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart -- P999 (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stars are actually rounded! --Podzemnik (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 10:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 23:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 00:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mystic Beach, Vancouver Island, Canada 10.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2018 at 06:56:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Canada
Info All by me. Mystic Beach after sunset. The beach is located in Juan de Fuca Provincial Park, Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada -- Podzemnik (talk) 06:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! --Basotxerri (talk) 08:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good photo. :) -- GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 11:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --De728631 (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This actually didn't look like that much as a thumbnail, but it's excellent. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little soft, but it is a long exposure. Daniel Case (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 10:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 23:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Realized that I really want to be there.:) --Wolverène (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sleeping cat on her back.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2018 at 18:06:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora
Info created by Umberto Salvagnin - uploaded by Catfisheye - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Funny and meme-able. I guess the quality and size are ok for a photo that is 9 years old, but by today's standard it is a bit on the small side for an animal photo, especially when the subject is as non-moving as this cat. --Cart (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart's reasoning. Daniel Case (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Cat photos on the internet. 10 a penny. I'm not a cat person: they eat the birds and crap on my seedlings. For such a highly and easily photographed subject, we can do better. -- Colin (talk) 07:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh Colin, you a birder too? -- Gerifalte _Del Sabana 03:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not a birder, and my photography of them doesn't extend past novelty snapshots. According to the RSPB, cats in the UK eat more than 55 million wild birds year year. -- Colin (talk) 08:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support So funny. I couldn't resist to turn the picture upside down to admire the face, and it's even better that way Just make a cool montage with a superman costume and the photo gets shared thousands of times on the social networks. Sure the quality is not the best, though the face is perfectly sharp at 2 Mpx -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Our cat is dooing exactly the same...--Karelj (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm a catlover... BUT the unattractive shadows and the background in general ruin it for me, sorry. --Cayambe (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think FPC become more chaos... --Laitche (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Burg Landshut jun 2018 (2).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2018 at 11:38:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
Info The 13th century castle Burg Landshut, built on late Roman remains, commands excellent views over the Mosel valley around the town of Bernkastel-Kues. Created, uploaded and nominated by Peulle.
Support -- Peulle (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing wrong with it technically, really, but I'm just not wowed. Daniel Case (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not like the dark green backgroung (trees) in combination with the building colour. --Karelj (talk) 07:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 15:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:2018 E-papieros mod 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2018 at 20:45:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, It isn't completely sharp, it's a studio shot Ezarateesteban 21:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ezarate. Daniel Case (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Skyline of the Central Business District of Singapore with Esplanade Bridge.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2018 at 14:07:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Singapore
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quite good but I think there's too much room on the left and bottom. It looks a bit imbalanced.--Peulle (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreed, composition is nice, crop not needed. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --A.Savin 17:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Beautiful, per George. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --De728631 (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wish we could do something about those building lights, though (look at what the long exposure did to the HSBC logo). Daniel Case (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I was about to give this a weak support since it is a great composition even though we've been spoiled by night photos from Code and XRay where you can read the logos on the buildings. (Even I have managed such HDR in a two-photos with hand-held pocket camera) But seeing that many of the highlights have instead been dimmed to a dull gray color is what pushed this into an oppose for me. --Cart (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cart. Too much blown here. HDR is necessary. Also blue hour rather than full darkness is typically more appealing. -- Colin (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good harmony of forms and colors. Quite sharp. Yann (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per Cart. Blown highlights is one thing, but "recovered" blown highlights that turn into a featureless splotch of grey is even worse. dllu (t,c) 00:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow, beautiful — Tybo2 (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - coming around to support. wasn't sure about the crop, but when I look at it again I kind of like that the composition sort of bends towards the camera on the right via the roads and the reflections. nice. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eurasian Tree Sparrows (Passer montanus) @ KL, Malaysia (Portrait crop).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2018 at 07:08:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info All by me! I feed them everyday and they decided to come up here on that day so... :) ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 07:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as the "imager" :c ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 07:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, it's a nice idea but the DoF is just too shallow. I feel that at least the first couple of the birds should be in focus. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree, it would look very chaotic. :) ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 07:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Bruce1ee. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very weak composition. The foreground is very distracting. The "main" sparrow is partially covered by a blurry foreground. Bad crop (tail is cut of). -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination since the majority disagrees with my opinion. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 10:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 10:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Striated Heron (Butorides striata) @ Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (3).jpg, not featured[edit]

Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes#Family_:_Ardeidae_(Herons)
Info All by me. -- Gerifalte _Del Sabana 06:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as creator and nominator. -- Gerifalte _Del Sabana 06:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm impressed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan -- P999 (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good --The Photographer 23:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The fence is unnatural and distracting. Sorry --A.Savin 01:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think it makes sense to nominate another picture after the very good heron picture which reveals that the bird lives in the zoo. This picture devalues the first one in this way too. The fence disturbs here at most.--Ermell (talk) 12:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ermell: That isn't a zoo love, it's a man-made pond. I'll take a wide angle shot of the area tomorrow evening when I go out for my daily birding session to show you. :) -- Gerifalte _Del Sabana 14:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't jump to conclusions too quickly, it's like saying that taking photos of a line of sparrows perched on a wire is taking pictures of sparrows in a power plant. Gerifalte _Del Sabana 14:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree, that fence is not helping at all. We have great images of birds in a more natural habitat Poc o² 17:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Poco. So many excellent bird photos on commons, the bar is really high. —Eve Teschlemacher (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Poco a poco and Ermell: File:Desa Parkcity @ KL Malaysia.jpg Have a look. -- Gerifalte _Del Sabana 23:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Ermell: In my defense, you can clearly see that the bird is not tagged, which would further prove that my local park is not a zoo. :P Best wishes and smiles, Gerifalte _Del Sabana 23:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Every picture tells a story and almost always very quickly. In most cases, a necessary explanation thwarts the meaning of photography. --Ermell (talk) 07:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know. Let's take this case: A woman peacefully crossing a creek? No, she's supposed to find mines. By stepping on them! A story, context, and background definitely not told by the picture as such. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This only confirms that the viewer can be manipulated by the description. There are many possible interpretations of the picture with the wading woman.--Ermell (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per A.Savin. --Karelj (talk) 07:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately per others. --Laitche (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 11:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 11:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Burg Cochem jun 2018.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2018 at 22:02:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
Info The castle at Cochem in the Mosel valley, Germany. All by Peulle.
Support -- Peulle (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Something seem off, perhaps too much perspective correction. Light is the wrong time of day. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tomas; might work with different light. Daniel Case (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this sky could easily be cut of 20% of its surface, keeping the same frame format, and the castle would become better highlighted. In fact this sky with its dull color is a bit boring, and the building more interesting. Thus less background and a bigger subject would improve the image -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Basile Morin: Thanks for your suggestion. I agree with your reasoning and I have cropped some sky now. Still probably won't make it as an FP because of the boring light, but I guess we can't have everything. :) --Peulle (talk) 10:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, better now -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Las Vegas-5603 (The Venetian).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2018 at 02:48:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors#United_States
Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is so much about this photogrpah... some may complain about grain, but for me it is ok... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the overall photograph, but I don't like the motion blurring. -- Gerifalte _Del Sabana 03:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 04:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Kind of bizarre, but I think that's the point. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I added a note of "heavy noise", however, I don't care, beautifull composition --The Photographer 22:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I like the painterly feel, it's still too noisy. Daniel Case (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Frank Schulenburg: Dear Frank, I applied a selective noise reduction, however, I rollbacked myself waiting for your approval if you it's ok for you. --The Photographer 23:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Photographer, thanks so much, my friend. Much appreciated (and no approval ever needed; I'm happy about any improvement). @Daniel Case: better now? --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome...Frank are you inside Daniel body? --The Photographer 04:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support now. Not perfect but a lot better. Daniel Case (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Many details, but it's that case when the image doesn't get worse. I'm not a profi, I like it subjectively though. --Wolverène (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Heavenly Rara Lake.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2018 at 03:11:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places#Nepal
Info The Rara Lake is the biggest and deepest fresh water lake in the Nepal Himalayas. It is the main feature of Rara National Park, located in Jumla and Mugu Districts. Rara Lake lies at an altitude of 2,990 m (9,810 ft) above sea level, has a water surface of 10.8 km2 (4.2 sq mi), a maximum depth of 167 m (548 ft), is 5.1 km (3.2 mi) long and 2.7 km (1.7 mi) wide. created by Bijay - uploaded by Prabeshsdev - nominated by Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 03:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 03:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This blue seems saturated, like artificial. Blue hour intensity, but too electric -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overprocessed, per Basile. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The saturation could be reduced, but still... wow! Yann (talk) 06:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral until the problem highlighted by Basile is fixed! Very good image. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 06:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I declined it at QIC. Daniel Case (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This has a potential, so I tried to edit it a bit: File:The Heavenly Rara Lake, edit.jpg. I am not an expert in photo-editing, so it certainly could be done better. @Basile Morin, Martin Falbisoner, GerifalteDelSabana, and Daniel Case: What do you think? Regards, Yann (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: Much better!, but I dislike the noise and the over-saturation of the water. -- GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Yann: for this effort of improvement. Honestly I don't find much difference. But my contribution is below with the alt -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question Bijay chaurasia, Yann: Would you like me to have a go at fixing this and offer it as an Alt? --Cart (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cart: Sure, please do. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Cart: Thanks and I do have question. This image won the 7th prize in the national contest of Nepal in Wiki Loves Earth 2018. Its better to upload a new version in the same file or ? Actually i am trying to contact with the up-loader but unable to contact him. --Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 03:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bijay chaurasia: The new versions should be in new files per Commons:Overwriting existing files. All the new versions here are significant changes of the file since they change it's appearance. There are many files where some of the assessments, such as QI or WLE, are on one file and the FP on another version. They are all linked through the "Other versions". --Cart (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cart Thank You --Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 04:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative - edited[edit]

Info Ok, since I haven't heard from the nominator Bijay chaurasia, I feel a bit like a trespasser here. Please revert the "Alt" if you don't like it. I have compared it with other Nepal photos, and due to the high altitude and clean air, the sky is much more blue and intense than the one we normally see. I think I've got it right now. The problem wasn't the saturation, it had more to do with the white balance, too intense shadows and luminosity. I only had to go -1 one on saturation, reducing it more would have made the trees bleak. I also did some noise reduction and smart sharpening. 'Pinging' all voters: Basile Morin, Martin Falbisoner, Yann, GerifalteDelSabana, Daniel Case. --Cart (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work, thanks to Cart. Yann (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support as well. -- GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This version was not significantly changed. It's still oversaturated. But I've uploaded another version with different color settings, which would be enough to strike this oppose if the consensus accepts (just needs a revert). However, I also notice posterization in the sky and think it would be better to make the change from the original file (before it was modified) rather than this already altered version -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that much change, so I am fine for either. Yann (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 04:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alright, this version is more realistic. Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 12:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:The Heavenly Rara Lake - edited 2.jpg

File:Bearded man with long hair-3052641.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2018 at 08:07:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by subhamshome28, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 08:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 08:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Striking subject. What's he looking at? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's obvious he's looking at the distant future. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's in the state of elevation and inner mounting flame. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's staring into our souls. :o --Gerifalte _Del Sabana 03:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Can see the contentness of a Sadhu in his eyes! J e e 09:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support As Baird Thomas Spalding describes some Sadhus in his book «Life and Teaching of the Masters of the Far East». -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 23:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. I discovered this picture on the site Pixabay last time Yann was nominating a similar portrait, where there was unfortunately a technical problem. I remember I thought "why not uploading this file instead, it would get greater chances of success". Then here comes the image and here's my support -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'll excuse the graininess as I think it was intended. Daniel Case (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 17:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 18:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support very eye-catching Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question Moises ? --The Photographer 16:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Museo Agrícola el Patio - Tiagua 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2018 at 20:48:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --СССР (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the composition but the light not so much -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sort of waxy-looking in too many areas for me, especially on the brush, and overall the composition doesn't wow me. Daniel Case (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Though this is a nice shot I really miss the "whow", there’s nothing really special in it, it’s just an overgrown house. Yellow/brown colour bandings in the clouds (overprocessing) visible even in preview size. --Kreuz schnabel 06:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 23:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rue des Papegaults and Petit Degres Saint-Louis in Blois.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2018 at 19:32:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Tournasol7 - uploaded by Tournasol7 - nominated by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't know what you think about this photo, but IMO it has a charm. -- Tournasol7 (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yeah, it does, but I just can't help the feeling that it's missing something. It's a bit cold, not much going on.--Peulle (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Works for me. I love the sharp descending curve and the drama of the threatening skies with the mostly but not solely gray cobblestones and outer walls of buildings. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 09:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful composition. -- GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 10:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Time stood still? ;-) --A.Savin 12:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I took this photo in the morning, when everyone was sleeping :) A moment later a storm passed. Tournasol7 (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm finding it looks a bit too over-processed (sharpness, clarity, contrast). -- Colin (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support top image Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --СССР (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. A nice scene typical of a smaller French city, made more interesting by the switchback. I agree with Colin that the post-production work cannot be missed, but it does not reach the threshold of ruining the image. Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I agree with Colin & Daniel: the processing could be tuned down a tad. --El Grafo (talk) 09:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 09:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 13:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition. I think this is not over-sharpened, not sure but maybe high-pass filter is too much. --Laitche (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Tybo2 (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like cold colours so much.. --Wolverène (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Light bulb filament.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2018 at 12:14:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects#Lamps
Info All by me. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 12:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as creator. -- ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 12:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing really exciting in this abstract composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Basile Morin: Thanks for your opinion, I'll withdraw it after one more oppose vote. --― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 02:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's how it works -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose An interesting idea, but this misses the mark. Daniel Case (talk) 06:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: Thank you for the constructive feedback as usual! ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 06:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 06:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 06:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Auberge Du Tresor.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2018 at 23:31:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info All by -- The Photographer 23:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as creator and nominator. -- The Photographer 23:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good! -- Gerifalte _Del Sabana 23:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it's a nice scene, but to me it looks like it's slightly stretched vertically? A simple aspect adjustment in Lightroom would fix it. It's subtle, though, so probably a good idea to wait for someone else to confirm what I think I see. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Sorry, it's a great scene but there are several really distracting issues. Would move to support if they are fixed (they are all fixable, I think). I still think a slight perspective/aspect correction would help, agree with Peulle regarding the top-right chimneys area (though this seems the most minor of the bunch), and in addition to the stitching issues highlighted by Ermell, there is also, for example, a woman wearing two shoes on one foot in the black and white striped dress at the bottom. Presumably not just a regional fashion trend. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks Ermell for add the notes to fix the stitching, clone stamp, noise, lines don´t match and masking remainings issues. Please let me know what do you think. With regard to the comment on the perspective, I personally can not see any error, please feel free to help me. @Rhododendrites: , @Peulle: --The Photographer 01:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Photographer: Great. I've made the aspect/perspective adjustment and uploaded a new version here, then reverted to your most recent. To my eye, the stretched perspective was visible in many of the people, but one ~objective example is the car wheel, one of the few things that should be the same width and height (roughly -- perspective changes it a little), but in the original it is clearly taller than it is wide. With so many people supporting, though, you may want to consider whether you think it's an improvement. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rhododendrites for your help, I will wait for the opinion of Peulle, Ermell and why not @Colin: , he always criticized me about perspectives fixes in the past that made me hate him, but now I practically have to beg him to criticize me.--The Photographer 02:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to compare against other images, and also Google street map. The chimneys are extra all and so unusual to our eyes. I think overall they are not rendered over-tall in this image bearing in mind that it is using a standard perspective that keeps verticals straight and parallel without consideration that things high up are actually further away from us and so would appear smaller to the eye. That distortion increases as one gets close to the subject, and in street scenes it is often very difficult to get comfortably far enough back. So we just have to accept some perspective distortion effect (stretch vs sloping verticals) and judge whether it is too offensive for the eye (compare this which I think is quite silly). I also compared the overall aspect ratio of the building and think Rhododendrites is right that it is a too narrow. I selected the area of window frames and compared with several photos. A global aspect ratio change might be the simplest fix. It is possible the proportions on the far left were OK (or the guy is quite short) whereas I agree the people in the middle are a bit thin looking. It isn't easy to create a stitch by hand with this many people. I do like that one can zoom in and people-watch. -- Colin (talk) 07:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Colin: I have applied a manual and complex perspective correction, based mainly on the wheel of the car, the letter "o" of "Trésor", the corrections made by Rhododendrites (thanks) and the comments that you have made (Please see this Gmaps point). Please, tell me what you think Colin, Rhododendrites and Ermell. Thanks again --The Photographer 03:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good to me. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - To me, and without prejudice to Rhododendrites' remark, this is excellent, both as a scene and a slice of life. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some fine tuning could be done in the area above the top right chimneys; there's some kind of grey blob there, as well as a small dust/insect spot.--Peulle (talk) 10:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ per my previous comment.--Peulle (talk) 10:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's better now that the grey stuff has been mended.--Peulle (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support J e e 11:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A lot of stitching errors, too much image noise on the right and a perspectively unnatural impression.--Ermell (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support A really fun people photograph and other things... The car really makes it! Congrats! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and busy place. --XRay ^talk 18:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the sphere and the people really add something to whole composition. I also like the strong colours --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support It isn't perfect but I can't stop liking it. You want to walk into this scene and sit down. Daniel Case (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the colors and how you framed and processed this scene. It looks very vivid to me. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 07:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 13:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fischlham Mevisto Cup 2017 Trickski Theresa Schmidberger1-1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2018 at 00:33:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Sports
Info I came across this picture while voting on last month's photo challenge and was struck at what a great action/sports shot it is. According to Isiwal, it's a moment of celebration just after successful completion of her exercise. Creation and uploaded by Isiwal, nominated by me — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yeah, that's pretty striking, as usual for Isiwal. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good - unusual to get an action shot that sharp.--Peulle (talk) 09:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 09:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 11:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 18:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love that you can see she's still wearing braces ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support piling on … --El Grafo (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 07:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 09:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 13:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:Limoilou, québec city, Canadá 0001 08.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2018 at 14:20:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info All by -- The Photographer 14:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Symmetry in a place I wouldn't have thought of looking for it. Daniel Case (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Still live - --Neptuul (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well exposed, good quality. --Podzemnik (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomisus onustus on Orchis purpurea.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2018 at 09:05:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida
Info Thomisus onustus on Orchis purpurea created by Rorolinus - uploaded by Rorolinus - nominated by Rorolinus -- Rorolinus (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful spider, extraordinary camouflage. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would crop much more (about 50% of the surface), but yes it's a very good combination -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Per above -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support At first you don't see what's going on, but then you look at the full-size and see the camouflaged spider... :) --Peulle (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 11:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Leave crop as it is. -- Colin (talk) 11:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Colin -- P999 (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Colin -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per others. --Laitche (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Colin --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very noisy for ISO 80 --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Uoaei1, it was taken with a Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX400V, which has a sensor with less than 2% of the surface area of a full frame sensor, so I guess this is similar to ISO 4200 on full frame. -- Colin (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Damn that camouflage is good! --Gerifalte _Del Sabana 03:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Groovy. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 13:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Corvus splendens insolens @ Kuala Lumpur (3).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2018 at 14:12:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Corvidae_(Crows,_Jays_and_Magpies)
Info All by me ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 14:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as photographer and nominator. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 14:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The picture is slightly posterized, although I have not sharpened it; and have only put a very slight amount of noise reduction. The only other edit done to the image is +0.13% exposure. I hope that the "wow factor" will compensate for the slightly below-top-notch quality. All criticism will be gladly accepted and taken into consideration. Cheers, ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 14:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Kind of dark and a lot of confusing elements in the background. Daniel Case (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Those handlebars are really disturbing to me.--Peulle (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 23:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 23:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 23:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Corvus splendens insolens @ Kuala Lumpur (2).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2018 at 23:40:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info All by me ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 23:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as creator. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 23:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The composition centered and with the bird cut is a bit strange, however, the bird details are amazing. Please, add geolocation and explain what the bird is eating in the file description. BTW, the scientific name in description page should be on cursive --The Photographer 23:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Photographer: Done, thanks! Got my 1000th edit doing it too, hehe. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 23:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unbalanced composition. Very nice beak and good sharpness but the feet and the tail are cut, while there's a huge empty space on top and on the right of the image -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't mind open space in a photo, but not like this. The crop of the bird is a bit unbalanced and strange. I could also do without the white thing to the left. --Cart (talk) 09:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile Morin --Llez (talk) 10:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate version, not featured[edit]

Info @Llez, W.carter, Basile Morin, The Photographer, and Johann Jaritz: Here is an alternate crop, still much more than 2MP (~8MP). ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 10:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I feel like I messed up on this big time, I hereby withdraw this and shall renom the cropped one. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 12:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 12:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tatoosh Range WA MRNP1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2018 at 01:28:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Acroterion - uploaded by Acroterion - nominated by Acroterion -- Acroterion (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Acroterion (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very nice scene - but the image quality is far too low (unsharp and possibly overprocessed). Sorry --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, it's a 9-year-old image taken on a now-retired camera that had a hard time with lighting conditions like that. I may try an alternate version with different noise reduction, but I may not be able to overcome the original imaage's limitations. Acroterion (talk) 11:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Martin; there's too much detail loss.--Peulle (talk) 10:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose A slam-dunk if it was sharper ... Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Regrettably. Probably would've been FP when it was taken -- it's a great scene when viewed at low resolution, but I don't think it quite has the detail necessary for FP of such a subject now. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all, your comments mirror my views. This is a frustrating image - I like it as a picture, but I really wish I'd had a Canon 5D at the time to shoot it with, nine years ago the 400D just wasn't quite up to the conditions. Neither more nor less processing will help, and I'll

withdraw the nomination. Acroterion (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Campsite at Mystic Beach, Vancouver Island, Canada.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2018 at 00:17:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places#Canada
Info created, uploaded, nominated by me. Campsite at Mystic Beach at the beginning of the golden hour, Vancouver Island, Canada. The campsite was quite busy that day due to Canada Day which made the weekend 3 days long and is a popular weekend for camping in Canada -- Podzemnik (talk) 00:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Perfect lighting and an incredible scene but the people there spoil it all to me. --Basotxerri (talk) 05:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Basotxerri Yeah it's a campsite, it's hard to avoid people there. However, you motivated me to nominate the beach only, too. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Send them back to their tents :-) --Basotxerri (talk) 08:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support much better than the 'alt'. Possibly tilted, though --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P999 (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --СССР (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 05:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Classic Walther PPK.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2018 at 21:38:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bond ... James Bond. I can forgive the noise since it's not too serious and my guess that it was a tradeoff for getting that depth of field if you, for whatever reason, didn't want to try focus stacking. I like that the image doesn't try to hide the gun's age. Daniel Case (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support great. f/22 might have been too much stopping down. I don't mind a shallow(-ish) dof in a shot like this one. Sometimes it helps make the visual impression less two-dimensional. Great pic anyway --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 13:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Useful for an encyclopedia but also satisfyingly composed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 07:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Façade hoist along the Andaz Hotel of Singapore at sunset.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2018 at 02:06:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Singapore
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice semi-abstraction. Daniel Case (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel Case. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel Case. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 50? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I think you can shoot @ 50 iso too with your 5D mark iii (manual mode), Martin -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Yup, I know, but I rarely use ISO50 as it doesn't improve on noise or iq. It's basically just a pulled ISO 100 setting that's useful for longer exposures... So in your case it wasn't necessary... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Necessary I don't know, but useful yes. Less noise clearly visible when you want a bit more extra sharpening. Difference significant enough in my experience, like 100 vs 200 -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! Maybe it's different with the Mark IV. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sad that the ISO of my Nikon can only go down to a hundred. :P --Gerifalte _Del Sabana 03:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support J e e 13:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support :) -- Gerifalte _Del Sabana 03:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 09:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice image and really well executed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 08:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The boss and the secretary.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2018 at 02:18:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hacéis cosas muy raras allí... :-) --Basotxerri (talk) 05:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question did you make the figurines yourself or is this a derivative work of someone else's artwork? If the latter, what's the copyright status of the original in the US/the source country? Compare COM:TOYS … --El Grafo (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment El Grafo I added licensing and copyright information to the image page. Catrinas and catrines are an offshoot of Mexico´s depiction of death as a living skeleton and found their maximum splendor under the creations of José Guadalupe Posadas at the beginning of the XX century in Mexico. These figures are part of the folklore and can hardly be considered original pieces. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do think it's quite cool, but on the whole I don't feel the technical quality (notably the DoF) is good enough for such a studio shot.--Peulle (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because, quality aside, this image sort of trivializes sexual harassment. Daniel Case (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Daniel Case There is a fuzzy line when it comes to the question of quality, on the one side opinion being one, and everyone has an opinion, and on the other there are qualitative aspects that are measurable to a degree. However, what really strikes is how you seem to oppose a photograph for a moral reason. If the image does, as you say, trivialize an ethical issue, well, then, that in itself is a motive to use as an example of trivalization and therefore an effective image. However, as photographers it is not necessarily our job to judge over this or that issue, but to record the image and let the image be used to illustrate a phenomena, for good or bad. That is not to say that as a person one cannot take a position, for one way or another, by choosing a subject we choose sides, but we cannot forget that sometimes terrible images result in good consequences [[15]] . --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Peulle, except I don't find it cool. Not a great piece of art -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, it is not a piece of art, it is a craft object that depicts or reflects a mindset and a cultural approach to death and sexuality and humor. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No lol :-( -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unattractive light. --Laitche (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 06:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Glaciar Lamplugh, Parque Nacional Bahía del Glaciar, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-19, DD 05-07 PAN.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2018 at 21:19:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Lamplugh Glacier, Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska, United States. All by me, Poc o² 21:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 21:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like it. However, I think it's tilted towards left a little. Please check this out. --Ximonic (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ximonic: I applied a tilt and improved the crop --Poc o² 17:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Ximonic (talk) 01:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Truly awesome, in all senses of the word. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 11:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rio di Santa Caterina ponte dei Gesuiti Cannaregio Venezia.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2018 at 12:01:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Italy
Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Venice has very, very few FP ;-) -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A QI for sure but the composition doesn't wow me. Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's OK, but the light is not great except for a few places.--Peulle (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cropping too tight over the roof -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trollius europaeus Spechtensee 02.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2018 at 19:26:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Ranunculaceae
Info Globeflower (Trollius europaeus). All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Fine photo. You should include the fly in your categories, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added category Unidentified Brachycera. I do not have the knowledge to determine insects. --Uoaei1 (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per Ikan. And in your description, too -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Direction and harshness of light, too much area around flower. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ucides cordatus ( Ucididae).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2018 at 20:11:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
Info created by Filo gèn' - uploaded by Filo gèn' - nominated by Filo gèn' -- Filo gèn' (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Filo gèn' (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Filo gèn': Did you just take a 300px photo and pass it through several layers of sharpening and upscaling just to nominate it here? I find it as if you're trolling... ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 12:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's all right, let's assume good faith as much as we can, shall we... the nominator is not the most experienced of FP nominators. @Filo gèn': this image is very far away from the technical quality required to be called "one of the best images on Commons" - please take a look at some other Feature Pictures if you want to get an idea of what is required. --Peulle (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the quality is not good - Basile Morin (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017.03.31.-08-Kaefertaler Wald-Mannheim--Gemeine Garten-Schwebfliege-Weibchen.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2018 at 17:40:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Diptera#Family : Syrphidae (Hoverflies)
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The insect is partly obscured.--Peulle (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the flower ate the head, :o ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 07:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
hockei Well, if you think so. --Hockei (talk) 07:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stamper en meeldraden van een witte Agapanthus (d.j.b.).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2018 at 15:12:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants #Family Agapanthaceae.
Info Fragile beauty of the pistil and stamens of the flower of an evergreen white Agapanthus cultivar. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition and how you processed this image. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Frank --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P999 (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop, flower is cutted on top side of image. --Karelj (talk) 07:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Yes it's "fragile", but since it's fragile I miss the top of the flower too -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: it was a deliberate choice to visualize the pistil and stamens. And not the entire flower. Dan was in my opinion lost the effect.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I like the colours and this soft light though I don't think the composition and angle are the best. --Laitche (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - also going neutral. I've come back to it a couple times, and just not sure. I really like the stamens delicately rolling out, on the darker background, but the crop is really hard to get past. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose beautiful but in accordance with Karelj, very sorry Olivier LPB (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Drill bits 2017 G1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2018 at 19:56:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, nice motif but not full sharp Ezarateesteban 21:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DoF too shallow per Ezarate, plus lighting too harsh (causing hard drop shadows). Nice idea but could have been taken better. --Kreuz schnabel 05:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 10:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Crop out the top, where it's unsharp, and this will work. Daniel Case (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 12:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If you take a closer look at the picture you can see that not much effort has been put into it. Flat illumination and insufficient depth of field.--Ermell (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question Do you have any reason why you didn't use focus stacking? --Laitche (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a studio shot. Just a quick photo at my visit the workshop without a tripod --George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks George. --Laitche (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Attacus taprobanis-Kadavoor-2018-07-07-001.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2018 at 05:43:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info Attacus taprobanis is a moth of Saturniidae family. It is native to southern India and Sri Lanka. Here the larva feed on Swietenia macrophylla and later started to pupate by making a cocoon on 13 June 2018. The larva spun a 7-8 cm long papery cocoon interwoven with a leaf. It cut the petiole and attach it to the stem using a strand of silk prior to pupate. This is to prevent accidental falling of the desiccated leaf. The color of the dried leaf matches with the cocoon to offer enough camouflage. The adult moth emerged from the cocoon as photographed here on 07 July 2018. The wingspan of male is about 180-200 mm. Created, uploaded and nominated by Jkadavoor. Processed by Colin. -- J e e 05:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- J e e 05:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent! -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really beautiful moth and impressively photographed (as usual). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 10:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry to disturb! For me this lacks details, especially around the head. --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. But please not that its wingspan is around 200mm, making it the second largest Lepidoptera in the world. So I have to keep a distance while photographing it. And the DOF is very limited in the head area even if I used f/14. J e e 03:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 23:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great capture but quality is not top Poc o² 18:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Request I compare all existing Attacus species FPs (File:Attacus atlas qtl1.jpg, File:Attacus atlas London Zoo 01118-2.jpg, File:ComputerHotline - Lepidoptera sp. (by) (30).jpg) with a 4000px version of mine. Could someone give me some opinions on how I should be improved? J e e 07:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Today another female emerged and the male returned to mate with her. I captured the head profile of male too. J e e 15:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support If I had to do something it will be decrease vibrancy and increase saturation in the same proportion (e.g. vibrancy =-15 saturation =+15), result = the colours of the butterfly become more dynamic and more prominent compared to green foliage. If I well understood your question. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC) oh and quality is top for a 6000px macro shot with the subject in full frame. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Christian Ferrer for the feedback. J e e 02:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 13:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Saturniidae_(Saturniids)

File:Jill Tracy performing at the 2018 Flower Piano.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2018 at 02:52:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/People#Events_(Arts,_concerts,_shows...)
Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd prefer more head space, but let's see what others think. Gerifalte _Del Sabana 03:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative: different crop[edit]

Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hear you, Gerifalte. How about this one? --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just noticed this, @Frank Schulenburg: , could you change the filename to something a bit more informative? Thanks. :) ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 11:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Much better. :) -- Gerifalte _Del Sabana 03:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not familiar with her music, but this suggests a certain quirkiness which might make it worth a listen. Daniel Case (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 12:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#Events_(Arts,_concerts,_shows...)

The chosen alternative is: File:Jill Tracy at the 4th annual Flower Piano event in San Francisco.jpg

File:Poppies bouquet 2017 G1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2018 at 21:13:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Red like my leaf :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, like a painting. Amazing —Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another image to go with Gymnopédie No. 1 (music file commented out since it disturbed the Bot closing process) Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aesthetic and per user:Daniel Case, haha. --Gerifalte _Del Sabana 03:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --СССР (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oh my yes! -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 09:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very well-composed still life. Not so much like a painting, really - in composition (not so much in look per se) like a very good painting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like a still-life painting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per KoH. J e e 02:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Info For the closing of this nom, I've commented out the music file added by Daniel. The bot read it as an "Alt" photo file since they display the same way in the coding. I've amended the closing with an "alt" that MZaplotnik had to do because of this. --Cart (talk) 07:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

alternative parameter needed, because ‎FPCBot has a trouble again -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully our double fixes will make it work now. --Cart (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

The chosen alternative is: File:Poppies bouquet 2017 G1.jpg

File:Vat Pa Phai temple with a Buddhist monk, orange marigold, clouds and blue sky, in Luang Prabang.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2018 at 11:58:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Laos
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just right ... I love the contrail coming out of the finial. Daniel Case (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel. Great picture! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support A beautiful simple sharp composition. Especially the man adds something to the composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 03:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support next time I take a picture of something with a steeple/spire/antenna I will pay some pilot to create a nice trail like this. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very pleasant. --Podzemnik (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Glaciar Hubbard, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-20, DD 16-21 PAN.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2018 at 21:25:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Hubbard Glacier, Alaska, United States. All by me, Poc o² 21:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 21:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW! -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not bad, but still not very impressive. Maybe other weather condition would have worked. And rather soft too --A.Savin 01:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per A.Savin. --Karelj (talk) 07:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Impressive to me! Yes, it's soft (and noisy) at humongous full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support An impressive photo! --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Only today I'm able to review this work. Large files are a pain for my computer. J e e 04:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Attacus taprobanis-Kadavoor-2018-07-13-001.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2018 at 07:14:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info created and uploaded by Jee - edited and nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wow! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome --Isiwal (talk) 08:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Intriguing. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks Christian for this processing and nom! J e e 09:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 10:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow is right! -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning! $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 17:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some clipping on the left wing, but it's almost too small to notice. Daniel Case (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Promoted as QI. Wonderful as FP -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unnatural background, and the flash maybe killed the animal, however, better centered and more details than the other one IMHO --The Photographer 23:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Butorides striata @ KL, Malaysia.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2018 at 12:14:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes#Family_:_Ardeidae_(Herons)
Info All by me. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 12:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as creator. -- ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 12:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I would like to see a bit more of space at the left side. --Cayambe (talk) 09:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cayambe: Check out the previous revision; I cropped some of the left side out because of a rock outcropping, heh. Would you prefer it? ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 09:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good quality, nice contrast between the subject and the background. I'd also prefer a tiny bit of space on the left but without stones :) Still great though, --Podzemnik (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would likely support either way, but I, too, wished there was a little more on the side. I see what you mean regarding the rocks, though. I went ahead and tried to remove them and uploaded another version here. I then reverted to your most recent edit. I should say that I did so fairly quickly and it's not perfect -- it's mainly to show that it's possible -- and if you like the change you may want to make it on your end with the raw file (it's just Lightroom's spot removal tool). This will likely pass without it, though. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: Point taken, I'll try to give it a bit more space now. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 00:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: new crop with slightly more space! ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 10:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support A bit Underexposed and please, try the next time a low angle shoot showing more contrasted background --The Photographer 23:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Sir Photographer! I was on top of the small waterfall where it was, so I couldn't get much lower, but I'll try next time. :) ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 00:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you are welcome lord from The Sabana --Photographer 22:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 11:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 13:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes#Family_:_Ardeidae_(Herons)

File:Crno jezero.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2018 at 10:29:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Montenegro
Info created by Srdjiv - uploaded by Srdjiv - nominated by GeXeS -- GeXeS (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GeXeS (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice picture but much too small for a landscape in 2018. Please upload the full resolution. --Code (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Code: Unfortunately, I guess the uploader is no longer active here; I just stumbled upon the pic and noticed it fulfils the technical requirements for nomination, so I thought it was worth trying (in my opinion the photo really deserves it). --GeXeS (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too small. It looks like the kind of shot that could have been promoted in 2012 but then delisted in 2018 since standards have moved along and the photo is no longer good enough.--Peulle (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Code and Peulle -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose beautiful but too small, per others. Daniel Case (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, I still think that it gets my wow and passes the minimum requirements, but a weak because per others, the resolution is not too good. Still an amazing photo overall though. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 06:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful oppose; very very good picture but downsized. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 06:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:La Graciosa - Monaña Clara - Alegranza.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2018 at 07:14:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Spain
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 12:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support It look like a picture taken from a airplane --The Photographer 23:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:St Patrick's Cathedral Choir, Dublin, Ireland - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2018 at 09:27:03 (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 kasir -- Kasir (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course. --Code (talk) 09:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Small artifacting here and there, but I love it no matter what. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 11:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Excellent work.--Ermell (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Huge size and I love these colors -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support We're missing David for a while though I know he is busy with his family. Hope to be back soon! J e e 02:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Long time no see. Daniel Case (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I Support this wonderful picture per everyone else. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful colors. --Podzemnik (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Diliff left from commons, however, his photos continue to amaze us --The Photographer 23:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 11:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sunrise in Kristianopel at Baltic sea 04.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2018 at 16:17:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by GPSLeo - uploaded by GPSLeo - nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As seen at QIC. It looks very pleasant to me. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much has been cropped away for me to support this one. I'd rather it had been composed better from the start.--Peulle (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow and main part is too dark for me --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very pleasing light and wonderful mood. I'd love to support it but please undo the crop and clone out the blurry birds above the building on the left. --Code (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Code - very restful, pleasant light, good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As suggested I undid the crop and removed the birds.(Cropped Version us uploaded separately) --GPSLeo (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GPSLeo, it's probably too late for this nomination, but in the future, always ping all the voters when you make any change. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this hint. Next time I will do so. --GPSLeo (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Celebrating a new America -lovewins 58242 (18588276403).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2018 at 02:21:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Fæ - uploaded by Fæ - nominated by B dash -- B dash (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B dash (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tree silhouettes have a lot of CA and are distracting. Subject is not fully sharp. Artifacts. This would probably fare better at VI; the technical quality is far from FP imo. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 02:35, 18 July 2018 (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: low image quality. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014-Cambodge Spean preah Toeûs (3).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2018 at 09:54:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info created by Pierre André - uploaded by Pierre André - nominated by Pierre André.--Pierre André ^(talk) 09:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pierre André ^(talk) 09:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A QI perhaps but it just feels to me too much like a typical tourist snapshot: the dark area at left is distracting, the sky is a little washed out and really, there's a lot going on here. A simpler photo of the idol might have packed more aesthetic punch. Daniel Case (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The front part of the main object is shadowed and IMO that is not very interesting --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- as per Daniel Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 10:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thank you for your advices, best regards.--Pierre André ^(talk) 13:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coleus (71543).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2018 at 03:22:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info Coleus, also known as Solenostemon scuttelarioides, and officially Plectranthus scutellarioides, in New York Botanical Garden's Haupt Conservatory. own work. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Texture with beautiful color -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice texture, per Basile Morin -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 09:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Excellent texture! Daniel Case (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mmmmm.... --Cart (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good. --The Photographer 23:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 11:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simply beautiful! AM (talk) 22:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 07:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Cityscape of Blois 07.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2018 at 16:03:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created by Tournasol7 - uploaded by Tournasol7 - nominated by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tournasol7 (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A QI for sure but it just doesn't stand out enough for me. Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I personally like it, but it seems a bit tilted visually, and is slightly overexposed at the lamps in the background, but it still looks good so... ;) I'd love it if the tilt could be fixed. -- Gerifalte _Del Sabana 03:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. At 10 MP the level of detail isn't quite there, and some noise and overexposure as well. But it's a great scene. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's not a bad picture, but composition, lights are failing for me as a featured picture. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cochem, Cond, Moselufer -- 2018 -- 0118.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2018 at 18:06:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Germany
Info created by and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 18:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 18:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Backlit dandelions are always irresistible, but in this case it competes too much with the identifiable background. Daniel Case (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I also would try shooting this more wide open. Really try to soften that background. At 2.8 or faster I doubt you could tell that was a building. You don't need a large DoF with these. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 09:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the choice of DoF is a feature here. I very much like this contre-jour photograph. --Code (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Code. Cool photo, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, no reason for FP. --Karelj (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 20:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Münster, Graffiti im Hafen -- 2015 -- 5852.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2018 at 18:02:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 18:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 18:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support A nice contrast between the dull tones and regular lines of the background and the brightly colored script of the graffito. Daniel Case (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 20:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pelicans Kerkini 20111227 IMG 5165.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2018 at 17:19:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes

Great composition, great light, I really like the pose of the pelican in focus. I now it is a bit soft but I hope the rest can mitigate this.

Info created by RoubinakiM - uploaded by RoubinakiM - nominated by C messier -- C messier (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- C messier (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose I very much like it but ... it suffers in sharpness from being so small. Daniel Case (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose Per Daniel. Great thumbnail, nice light and pattern, but not excellent quality at full size -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel, and as a bird photographer myself, a shot from a lower angle would be much better, if permitted. :) -- Gerifalte _Del Sabana 03:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really good composition, IMO. I really like the rhythm, the way my eyes move around the picture frame. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Over-denoise filter applied, the animals pen look like a smooth plastic surface --The Photographer 23:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 20:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Copsychus saularis @ Kuala Lumpur 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2018 at 14:18:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Muscicapidae (Old World Flycatchers)
Info: All by me, retouched by User:PawełMM _{(read below and under file description for more info)}. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 14:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain, as nominator. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 14:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Bird is mildly posterized pre-process, I hope that it is acceptable. Some noise too. Also, this version is retouched (spot removal of the twig, per the lower photo), the original (brightened) file is nominated as an alternative below. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 14:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bird is sharp, but background is for me too dark for FP --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality of the bird itself is not exceptional, and I agree with Michielverbeek this dark background being not adapted, as instead of highlighting the black animal, it creates a kind of camouflage -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile Morin.--Peulle (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 02:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative version, not featured[edit]

Info: Non-retouched version. Small brightness increase _{and crop}, that's all. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 14:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain, per above. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 14:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No real difference with the previous version -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose also per Basile Morin.--Peulle (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 02:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 05:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tuinen Mien Ruys (actm) 22.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2018 at 14:50:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Potentilla nepalensis. 'Miss Willmott'. #Family Rosaceae (Zaad zetting)
Info The seed development is like a beautiful work of art. All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Yes, the subject itself is beautiful, but the way it overlaps a bokeh of the same thing and a stem is disturbing to me. If it overlapped a green bokeh, I'd be more likely to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Maybe isolated without its blurry part, this natural "organic artwork" would have shone in this composition. But here the specimen behind is too much distracting. Agree with Ikan -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the comment.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cypripedium acaule - Henvey Inlet3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2018 at 04:30:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family : Orchidaceae
Info - all by -- СССР (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- СССР (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject is sharp, but the composition much less interesting than the previous one. The light has nothing special and the background is distracting -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Basile. The other photo had graceful curves (though one can see why it is also called the scrotum flower) and this one a worse angle and distracting background. -- Colin (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Cool: Looks like a nose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File :Pseudosphinx tetrio (Sphingidae).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2018 at 02:36:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info created by Filo gèn' - uploaded by Filo gèn' - nominated by Filo gèn' -- Filo gèn' (talk) 02:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Filo gèn' (talk) 02:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop IMO. --Gerifalte _Del Sabana 03:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A further oppose based on what everyone has added. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 02:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think, this is not the original background. The motif was cut out (visible at the borders) and placed on an even blue background. --Llez (talk) 04:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 07:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. -- Colin (talk) 07:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--西安兵马俑 (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Llez, and even if it had the original background I find the composition awkward and cluttered. Daniel Case (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, Llez is right. This is not the original background. We can see that using a software indicating the hexadecimal code of the color at various points. In this case, the color is always #7085C8. Whereas in a real blue sky (like this one for example), visually evenly spread, the subtle color and its associated hexadecimal code will always vary -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Close-up photograph of an Iguana iguana.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2018 at 06:04:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family_:_Iguanidae_(Iguanas)
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support as in QIC. J e e 07:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
weak support It is sharp and 60% larger than the other five near-identical featured photos of green iguana that we already have. I would be more interested in seeing some behaviour; we don't need yet another passport photo. -- Colin (talk) 07:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 09:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 10:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 10:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Almost a texture photo. -Cart (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles#Family_:_Iguanidae_(Iguanas)

File:Corvus splendens insolens @ Kuala Lumpur (2) alternate crop.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2018 at 12:13:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Corvidae (Crows, Jays and Magpies)
Info All by me ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 12:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as photographer, uploader and nominator. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 12:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Basile Morin (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 10:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 10:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool --A.Savin 08:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good but can you change the description please? "A house crow (Corvus splendens insolens) enjoys a chunk of wholemeal bread!" is not very encyclopedic I think, I'd prefer something more neutral like "A house crow (Corvus splendens insolens) eating a chunk of wholemeal bread". --Podzemnik (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Podzemnik: Done ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 03:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 13:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Corvidae (Crows, Jays and Magpies)

File:Silent dialogue.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2018 at 11:15:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family : Cervidae (Deers)
Info Deer (Cervus laphus L.) in Mizhrichynskyi Regional Landscape Park, the biggest regional landscape park in Ukraine. The large wild area provides a habitat to many animals. Created by Wildlife Ukraine - uploaded by Wildlife Ukraine - nominated by Anntinomy -- Anntinomy (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Anntinomy (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry it doesn't compare well with our existing FP's of deer (see updated FP category above), wrt composition, exposure or sharpness. The filename and categories could do with some changes. -- Colin (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin; it looks great as a thumbnail but when looking at it, the quality and crispness just isn't there. As far as the categories go, this is not an elk, it's a deer, so that needs tidying up.--Peulle (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The head and the body of the deer are not sharp. I think f/4 at 420mm here is not enough, and also 1/15s too long to avoid motion blur. Concerning the light, there are blown highlights. The composition may be interesting but the quality is not there -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I didn't even get to looking at the deer; the center of the picture looks like someone dropped an ice cube on it an hour before ... I mean, even Monet would have included more detail. The unsharp area is distracting even at thumbnail; at full size it is grotesque. Daniel Case (talk) 05:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, especially Daniel. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others --Llez (talk) 10:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 13:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Body of a Hansson 31 sailboat.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2018 at 19:32:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport#Sailboats
Info Not the way you usually depict sailboats. I like how it fills the frame, almost suspended in the blue by ropes and lines, and you can go explore all the details of the body. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Typical "QI not FP"-case in my eyes. I see nothing special here. Sorry. --Code (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know you'd probably have to be a boat person to go wow at this, but I figured it is worth a shot. You never know. :) --Cart (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Cart (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in the evening.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2018 at 18:05:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created - uploaded by DmitriyGuryanov - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose A bit too blown at the sky, maybe the creator could fix it using the raw? ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 02:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the way the colors of the sky work with those of the cathedral (This is the one that Luzhkov worked to have restored at great public expense in the '90s, IIRC?). Daniel Case (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 13:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Really nice building, but the sky is not interesting enough to make this a great composition in my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per GerifalteDelSabana. --Karelj (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is overall good but that yellow looks overdone to me, this may be fixed --Poc o² 08:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haría - Lanzarote 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2018 at 10:33:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Spain
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 10:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 10:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good image, but I do not see reason for FP nomination. --Karelj (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much grass foreground and not enough interesting features. The landscape appears distorted, whether by the projection or reality, it just looks rather wrong. -- Colin (talk) 07:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment BTW: It is not distorted, please have a look on the verticals of the trees and houses. The street on the right comes down from the hill. --Llez (talk) 10:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Llez a cylindrical perspective (which is common for panoramas) will keep verticals vertical but cause serious horizontal curvature away from the midpoint. -- Colin (talk) 12:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes I know, but then the top of the house on the right side and also the top of the round building on the right border (See annotations) should be oblique, but they are stricly horizontal, there is no curvature. --Llez (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Llez (talk) 11:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Glaciar Margerie, Parque Nacional Bahía del Glaciar, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-19, DD 33.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2018 at 18:14:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Margerie Glacier, Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska, United States. All by me, Poc o² 18:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 18:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not a place where I ever expect to come in my life. IMO the fog adds something to the composition and also the foreground is quiet sharp --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 10:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 04:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Glaciar Davidson, Haines, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-18, DD 55.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2018 at 08:36:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Smial -- Smial (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this image because of the very special lighting. -- Smial (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree, a nice one! :) Thank you Smial for the nom! --Poc o² 11:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support For once, an image with grey sky and dirty subject adds to the value.--Peulle (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 13:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree, great lighting. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would be great if brightened 2/3 stop or so but right now it's too dark for me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KoH I just checked it and 2/3 stop would be definitely too much, the atmosphere of the images would be essentially different. If Smial wants I can offer a alternative version. Poc o² 07:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Simple brightening wouldn't work. Perhaps slight S-curving? I don't think it's really necessary, but I've tried a minor rework. --Smial (talk) 11:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree then. In my opinion scenes sometimes do need to be brightened from what the eye sees; for example, I've found that the optimal time to photograph during the blue hour comes 5-10 minutes after the optimal time for viewing the scene with the naked eye, using a significantly longer exposure of course. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good as it is--Ermell (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support We not should change the natural light of this scene --The Photographer 23:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Red Army monument in Mikolin (Nikoline) 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2018 at 07:16:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very well-taken photo, but partially obscured by shrubbery, not an outstanding composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Ikan -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support ... and for the reasons people oppose! It speaks of the times... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not much obscured to me. So foliage around is quite natural. J e e 03:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weaky supporty per Tomas, but a closer angle wouold be much better :) ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 07:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Per Jkadavoor, although I'd prefer a closer angle --Llez (talk) 10:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 18:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --СССР (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Silesia Star, Katowice (Kattowitz).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2018 at 07:12:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Tempted to support this interesting composition, but why so relatively small, considering this is an FP nomination? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
size is not very big, but enough for FP in my opinion --Pudelek (talk) 11:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is noted, but I asked you why it's so relatively small. So why is that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Because this size is ok for me --Pudelek (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's just as unresponsive as "Because I said so". I will give this nomination moderate Support, but I really don't appreciate your non-answers and don't think they will help you convince anyone. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's a pretty good image, but the combination of the bridge and building doesn't quite work for me. If the bridge had been the subject I might have been convinced with that nice yellow steel construction on the left, but right now the buildings in the background are disturbing that impression. So the buildings and the bridge are disturbing each other. Perhaps a different angle might have worked.--Peulle (talk) 12:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support eye-catching Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 08:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Butorides striata fishing @ Kuala Lumpur (2).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2018 at 01:20:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes#Genus_:_Butorides
Info All by me. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 01:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as nominator and photographer. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 01:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support However, the image page needs optimizations: overcategorization (Butorides striata javanica is sufficient, as it is a sub-category of Butorides striata) and image text (what means "The same ..."?). --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Uoaei1: Done. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 06:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support very sharp head and interesting pose --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes interesting pose, but I think we have now enough FP of this bird. This alone is not enough to oppose for me, but the unnatural environment (railing?) and the non-optimal background have given the rest. --A.Savin 06:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @A.Savin: May I remind you that Kuala Lumpur is a large city. The background is of the bank of the small lake/pond. I also disagree of your argument that there are "enough FPs" of the bird. IMHO, your statement is rather thoughtless and pointless. Other birds have many more pictures. I could have uploaded this image to other websites to sell, and copyrighted it. But I choose not to. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 06:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote, several FP of the same bird is not reason enough for me to oppose (at least in this case), other people may have a different opinion on it. However, we have plenty of excellent wildlife pictures with natural setting, and this one doesn't stand up. But some your other photos of common birds in Kuala Lumpur have excellent background setting (e.g. the portrait of this heron), but this one is not as good, imho. --A.Savin 09:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This one is different from the others because of the bird's pose, about to catch a fish. I really like this as a "right before the action" shot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with A.Savin I'm afraid. You've got three FPs of this bird, taken within days/hours. This is the weakest nomination, and FP is about the finest. I don't like the concrete diagonal. If you take a picture that you think is much better than the existing ones, then by all means offer it. But also remember reviewers do fatigue of seeing the same subject repeated within days. "Bird from various angles" only has so much interest for most people, and "same bird from various angles" is stretching our interest to breaking. Better to try bird catching food, feeding young, flying/landing, mating ritual, etc: photos showing behaviour are much rarer on Commons and will keep us interested. Wrt uploading pictures vs selling, well that is the same for all us photographers. Thanks for sharing your photos, but that alone is not an argument for FP. -- Colin (talk) 08:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others; this is not a remarkable shot.--Peulle (talk) 10:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 13:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 13:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hymenocallis littoralis among reed 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2018 at 14:25:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family_:_Amaryllidaceae
Info: All by me. Decided to try take some aesthetic pictures today. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 14:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain, as photographer and nominator. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 14:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oppose for all alternatives. An interesting flower, but very poor composition. The main object is covered by a blurry foreground and and crop from below is very unhappy. I expected to see the whole flower. Very friendly, George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@George Chernilevsky: I'll try to take another one highlighting the issues you have brought up. Till then, ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 14:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, i want your better photo. And also square format with ~25-30% crop at right coul be better -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative, non-B&W, not featured[edit]

Info: All by me too. Non B&W version. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 14:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain, as above. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 14:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination for both. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 14:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 14:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2018 at 11:50:26 (UTC)

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 11:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 11:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question is this a set nom? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. You can see that in the file name when you click on 'edit'. You will see Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin as the nomination name. Another tipoff that it's a set nom, is that the nom page name in the FPC list hasn't got a "File:" or "Image:" in the name. If you just open a set nom in 'edit' and cancel, you will come to the nomination page. --Cart (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Code (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question What is the reason why the walls don't seem vertical in the picture on the right ? Under the arch, they are leaning towards outside, as if the perspective correction had gone too far -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is simple: they are indeed leaning outwards due to the static pressure of the arches. The hanging candelabras however are perfectly vertical. --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 08:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent documents. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are quite a few stitching errors in the 360 picture but the quality of the pictures is amazing (colors, number of megapixels etc.). It kind of makes up for the errors for me :) --Podzemnik (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this 360° photo, good job, impressive and useful ! Olivier LPB (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:North view in Galleria Vittorio Emanuele II from rotunda.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2018 at 20:48:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Italy
Info created by Daniel Case - uploaded by Daniel Case - nominated by Daniel Case -- Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the wow but it feels tilted. Slightly, CW. Could be wrong but I don't think I am.--Peulle (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peulle: I checked again and it's not. What may be giving you that impression is that I wasn't exactly on the center axis as I took the photo. Daniel Case (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That might be it, yes. I'm checking the horizontals and that's when I see that things on the left aren't lining up with the right. I don't see any problems with the verticals, though.--Peulle (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Beautiful photo, especially the glass roof. Unfortunately three people in the front are disturbing the composition too much (especially the boy in the left corner) --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Michielverbeek: Usually I roll my eyes at "Ewww! People" opposes to things like this but I admit with this one you may have a point. I will see if Peulle's right about the tilt (I don't think so, but you never know) and probably crop the people mostly out so all you see is tops of heads. Would that work better? Daniel Case (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC) I don't think the people problem is repairable. I guess it would have been better if you would take this photo some seconds before or after --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - A mall with people. It's fine, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The composition brings to mind The School of Athens. --Cart (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are many similar pictures from the gallery. I don't think this is outstanding.--Ermell (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cut feet and distracting head seen from behind in the foreground. Also I agree with Peulle there's a small tilt (fixable) visible on the left side with this part of the building being not perfectly vertical. The roof is wonderful, but unfortunately we can't cut the image over the crowd, so we really have to compose with these people walking. In this kind of situation, I usually use a tripod and wait quite long, until an interesting configuration occurs, neutral or special (extra value if someone creates something). But that's not easy, and subject to luck. Here I'm bothered by the crowded bottom. Not enough free space on the floor visually to breath and feel an elegant composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have fixed the tilt (I think). Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Head mutilation in people is too distracting --The Photographer 23:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tallinn.- 26 Pikk House of the Brotherhood of Black Heads (1).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2018 at 21:04:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
InfoThe gate of the House of "Brotherhood of Black Heads", in Tallinn’s Old Town, Estonia, created by Pierre André - uploaded by Pierre André - nominated by Pierre André --Pierre André ^(talk) 21:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pierre André ^(talk) 21:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The door curves a bit - barrel distortion? (btw. re the file name, the word "pikk" means a rude word for "penis" in Norwegian, so I can't stop laughing) :D --Peulle (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done Correction of the slight curvature of the door situated on Long Street (Tallinn)

. Thank you for your advice.--Pierre André ^(talk) 19:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Unbalanced composition with sides cropped at a weird place. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King of Hearts. The arch roughly cut like that on both sides is not very pleasant -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 05:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:ES5310064 - Avenc de Son Pou.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2018 at 07:57:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Pascal Dihé -- Pascal Dihé (talk) 07:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Overexposed, large blown areas. If you fix these problems, I may reconsider. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are right. I tried to fix it in the new version. Pascal Dihé (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Better in some ways, but the colors on the left side don't look real to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As per Ikan Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 09:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Pascal Dihé (talk) 12:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Capturing Araku valley in iPhone 7 (2).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2018 at 12:36:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by IM3847 - uploaded by IM3847 - nominated by User:IM3847 -- IM3847 (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IM3847 (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Low technical quality, but aesthetic as a thumbnail, so no FP, per Basile. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 13:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: insufficient quality - Basile Morin (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hymenocallis littoralis among reed 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2018 at 14:25:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family_:_Amaryllidaceae
Info: All by me. Another lily picture. Beautiful plants, they are. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 14:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain, as photographer and nominator. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 14:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An interesting flower, but very poor composition. The main object is covered by a blurry foreground and crop from below is very unhappy. I expected to see the whole flower. Very friendly, George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some friendly newbie advise: While these kind of multiple noms are perfectly within the rules, they are not something we usually see here. "Alts" are a second option if opinions lean towards some other crop or processing, it is not something we normally see directly in the nom. It is good that you are enthusiastic about photos and this project, but FP is not just about taking good photos, it is also about being able to select the best photo and present it here at FPC. These constant changes and multi-noms not only scatter the votes so that in the end none of the photos may have enough votes for an FP, they also induce a certain reviewer fatigue in voters that is not in your favor. Have a good think and selection before you nominate, and we will be happy to vote on your photos. --Cart (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for settling on this one nom and removing the other + alt. :) --Cart (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It is a good idea but the photo would have been better with some "analogue editing", that is bending and/or removing some reeds in front of the flower. With such big, spidery flowers, I don't think it's necessary to have all of it in frame and focus (we've seen that before) but it needs to be perfectly balanced in the photo if you do that. --Cart (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad crop --Atamari (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 04:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 08:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cusheon Lake in the early morning, Saltspring Island, British Columbia, Canada.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2018 at 05:15:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Canada
Info all by me. Cusheon Lake is the third largest lake of Saltspring Island, British Columbia, Canada. The picture was taken from a pier on a public beach by Cusheon Lake Road in the early morning, about 2 hours after the sunrise -- Podzemnik (talk) 05:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 07:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great landscape and good sharpness at 10 Mpx -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good reflexxion --Michielverbeek (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not the sharpest picture ever but very impressive view. Beautiful colours and composition. --Code (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 08:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Niiiice --Poc o² 08:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile Morin -- P999 (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well executed, light and composition --Photographer 22:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ET Bahir Dar asv2018-02 img17 Tis Issat.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2018 at 09:04:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Ethiopia
Info The Blue Nile Falls in Bahir Dar, Ethiopia ----- all by A.Savin --A.Savin 09:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 09:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, very impressive with this local rainbow giving to the waterfall an idyllic aspect -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile Morin -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support On the edge of surrealism and reality. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sky is a bit dark, but the waterfall is very sharp --Michielverbeek (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 08:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 08:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Parque Nacional Bahía del Glaciar, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-19, DD 10-15 PAN.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2018 at 09:10:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Safari Endeavour vessel exploring the Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska, United States. All by me, Poc o² 09:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 09:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support At first impression it looked tilted, but checking the reflections and trees, I realize it has the same crazy waterlines we get here in the fjords with the slanting cliffs and curving shores and no real horizon in sight. --Cart (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Superb panorama. A tiny ship compare to rocks shows the real scale and grandeur of the landscape -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 11:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per George Chernilevsky. --Podzemnik (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 13:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Beautiful Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 15:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support A beautiful panorama --Michielverbeek (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nice one.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 07:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Michielverbeek -- P999 (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 13:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tree swallow at Stroud Preserve.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2018 at 09:16:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Hirundinidae (Swallows)
Info All by me. -- Iiii I I I (talk) 09:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Iiii I I I (talk) 09:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question Could we have some more info on the background, please? Is it artificial?--Peulle (talk) 10:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peulle, GerifalteDelSabana, and Daniel Case: No, it's not an artificial background, just grass that's way out of focus because of the 600mm focal length. Here is the uncropped version which shows some of the variation in background, and here are some other unprocessed shots from the same day with similar backgrounds. --Iiii I I I (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Peulle (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely regretful oppose because of that background. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 14:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly supported Well that's some noisy grass, but I really like the bird. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 23:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral pending resolution of questions about background. Daniel Case (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support I figured it was blurred grass. But I wonder if maybe you cropped in a bit too much. But ... it's your image and your call. Daniel Case (talk) 05:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too much noise and satured colors. --The Photographer 23:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per The Photographer, plus the unattractive light makes it look almost 2-dimensional compared to this. --Cart (talk) 09:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per The Photographer and Cart. Quality is too low for FP -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chipmunk (71669).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2018 at 16:30:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info an Eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus) nibbling in the New York Botanical Garden. own work — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I take it you pay this model peanuts... --Cart (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. Just doing me a favor because I helped him with a tough case once. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A bit small for the "new" FP standart not official, arbust distracting on foreground (note added) and composition problem (too hight angle shoot) --The Photographer 23:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I'm surprised to hear the opinion that a ~5 megapixel image of a small subject is too small. Nothing I can do about that (or the angle) now I suppose. I'd be happy to try cropping a bit if that's what this discussion yields, though. Maybe a bit less than the note says (such that the grass still kind of frames the subject, to the left/right and behind). Curious to get other thoughts. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing your picture with images in the same FP subject, the smaller photos are at least 10 years older than this, of all the things that I told you that It's the only thing measurable, the rest is only a personal opinion humbly --The Photographer 23:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also find the size a bit small (or just limit), especially considering the composition could be cut at the bottom and on the right -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support small but convincingly nice --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mostly per The Photographer. The small size (and small subject within the frame) isn't an absolute fail for wildlife, but mainly that it gets no points for detail, resolution, when we're trying to work out what is exceptional here. If this was some rare species and the lens was already 400mm then I'd be more forgiving, but this is in a city garden. I don't think subject size is really a factor, just the appropriate choice of lens. Subject distance is generally more of a limitation, and our best wildlife photography often shows a good deal of effort to get close to the subject (and hours and hours of missed chances). The green shoots are also a bit distracting. And agree that getting down at the same height as the subject is often superior. -- Colin (talk) 07:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose - Very good photo and worth nominating, but I ultimately oppose per others, mainly because of the size, but also for the other reasons cited. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:The lighthouse on the promontory of Nyholmen by Bodø harbor.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2018 at 17:15:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created by Frankemann - uploaded by Frankemann - nominated by Frankemann -- Frankemann (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Frankemann (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Definitely a QI, and well-done, but sandwiching the putative subject between two layers of land does not help focus on it. Basically, there's too much going on in this image. Daniel Case (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Horizon is bright, while the main parts are quiet dark and it does not draw my attention --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Underexposed and Composition --The Photographer 23:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, for all the reasons others oppose, I like the brightness that gives me a melancholic feel. However, a lower angle and a composition with a larger lighthouse would be better. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 07:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The view and the light amid the darkness strike me, so I think that's sufficient for me to vote to support. The highlights are a little blown, but I believe this view actually looked as depicted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel Case. --Karelj (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Underexposed and slate horizont, --Fischer.H (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olympic Roof Munich, July 2018 -02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2018 at 21:54:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
Info Detail of the Tensile membrane roof in Olympiapark, Munich. It covers much of the park and was designed by architect and engineer Frei Otto. All by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition looks haphazard to me, especially the bottom. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I chose this composition to illustrate the organic character of the design. Maybe I exaggerated my approach...? —Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, you just added a bit too much of it. That bottom post/pillar/support makes the compo a bit off. See suggested crop. --Cart (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Info, Thanks Cart, the square is much better (and I don't have to clone out real elements of the construction). Also pinging King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes that's it! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! Now you got that flowing flying feeling in the photo. :) --Cart (talk) 10:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 07:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Such Martin-Falbisoner-like photo. --Podzemnik (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that's a good thing --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Isiwal (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:მამრი შვლის ნუკრი ლაგოდეხის დაცულ ტერიტორიებზე.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2018 at 21:11:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family_:_Bovidae_(Bovids)
Info Male fawn at the Lagodekhi Protected Areas in Georgia. Created by Vacheraindeli - uploaded by Vacheraindeli - nominated by Giorgi Balakhadze -- Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 21:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 21:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks downsized to me - to 57%. Also, the species ID is needed in the categories, both for QI and FP.--Peulle (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful animal but small in an environment that isn't very exciting. It also looks oversaturated. This adds up to not FP for me. --Cart (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. Though the light is very good, the colors seem a bit artificial, and the CAs have probably not been corrected. The subject is not huge, whereas the environment much less interesting is very dominant -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pholiota squarrosoides (Peck) Sacc 664568.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2018 at 18:51:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi
Info created by Sava Krstic (sava) - uploaded by Leoboudv - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Also considered a great image at the source. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The right side is clearer than the left, but overall, a very good, interesting image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something different and of great quality --Poc o² 08:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I always suspected that molecular models were grown, not built. :) --Cart (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P999 (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi

File:Müllersches Volksbad Munich at Dusk, July 2018.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2018 at 08:08:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
Info Müllersches Volksbad, Munich, at dusk. The natatorium was built between 1897 and 1901 and is famous for its Baroque Revival/Jugendstil architecture. Upon completion it was the largest and most expensive indoor swimming pool in the world. All by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Poc o² 08:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty, --Podzemnik (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 13:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P999 (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Thin composition and the tower is leaning out --Photographer 22:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the compo's thick enough for me ... as for the tower: I'm on a business trip currently, but I'll have a look at it upon my return on Friday. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, I will change my vote to neutral because the thin composition. --Photographer 01:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yes, the tower is slightly leaning out, I suppose, it will be corrected --Llez (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*

Comment I just realized "suppose" could be the word between support and oppose. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 03:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Parkview Square and Andaz Hotel buildings.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2018 at 12:21:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Singapore
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support good job - though the "postmodern" building is almost breathtakingly ugly... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really ? Though the top of this tower is really unique File:Top_of_the_building_Parkview_Square_in_Singapore.jpg. Locally, we call it the "Wayne Industries" building because of the use of tinted glass and brown facade, which represents the Wayne Industries office blocks in Gotham City from the Batman series. Wikipedia says it is also known as the "Gotham building". It is one of the very rare architectures of the 21st century in this style Art Deco. The mix with different kind of modern skyscrapers in the same district, like the Andaz Hotel here on the right, creates an interesting diversity, in the middle of green gardens and parks. But that's definitely a matter of taste. Thanks for your review -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's always a matter of taste. :-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The one I'd be more apt to find ugly is the Andaz Hotel, but that building is actually interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the opportunity, it would be great to see that building in a truely "noir" Gotham-ese setting at dusk/dark with moon, threatening clouds, lights, etc. --Cart (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Making the next POTY :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice and sharp. Maybe you could remove a bug - it's visible if you zoom in in the upper part between the buildings. --Podzemnik (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a small bird, or a bat :-) Done Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support but maybe just a tiny bit grainy due to oversharpening. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well noted, thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 11:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strong verticals. Daniel Case (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 17:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aglais io Mitterbach 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2018 at 21:00:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Nymphalidae_(Brush-footed_Butterflies)
Info Peacock butterfly (Aglais io). All by me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Normally I would say "nothing special about this butterfly", but this picture is really well done! --A.Savin 10:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 13:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P999 (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Nymphalidae_(Brush-footed_Butterflies)

File:Oenothera stricta (d.j.b.) 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2018 at 18:32:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants # Family Onagraceae.
Info Oenothera stricta biennial rare teunisbloem. Blooms in the night. The photo was taken in the early morning, just before the flower closed. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GeXeS (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 10:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lighting patterns on the grass in the background suggest the camera was tilted by about 20° – sorry, but that looks very wrong to me. --El Grafo (talk) 07:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. However, I do not know what you mean. The camera was about level horizontally.--Famberhorst (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P999 (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Roof of a heritage barn, Ruckle Heritage Farm, Saltspring Island, British Columbia, Canada.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2018 at 16:49:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Canada
Info All by me. It's a roof of a heritage barn built in circa 1920. Main beams including the ladders are hand hewn. The barn is part of Ruckle Heritage Farm at Saltspring Island, British Columbia, Canada, the the oldest working farm in British Columbia which is still owned by the original family (2018). I did my best with the tilt but the beams are quite crooked - no wonder, they've been there for a century. -- Podzemnik (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aesthetic. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 01:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great symmetry and warm color tones. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. Really fine photo on an unusual subject for FPC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support ok ! Olivier LPB (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm beaming at this one Daniel Case (talk) 01:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Forest road Slavne 2017 G9.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2018 at 12:01:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Ukraine
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's ok but not making me go wow. Car tyre tracks - meh. A road narrowing into the middle is a very common theme, but here the road is short and I have no real interest in following it. The scene seems rather static. Would have been better with some people walking along the road, or a cyclist or horses. -- Colin (talk) 07:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is nice but it reminds me too much to your FP from a few weeks ago Poc o² 08:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My reason for this nomination: same day. same forest way, but different place. Possible, set nomination could be better, however, one photo is already promoted --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Poco.--Peulle (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Poco. Daniel Case (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Praying monks and nuns in the Buddha Tooth Relic Temple of Singapore.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2018 at 04:12:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Singapore
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent quality, the photo gives me the feeling I am just between the monks and nuns --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support A bit blown-out in the center but still very good. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes perhaps the technical quality would have been improved with HDR process, but in the current situation time was really limited. Only a few seconds available to take this single picture before my camera was driven by the crowd and the guard to the exit. Interiors of Chinese temples are often wonderful, though rather rare here, maybe because frequently lit up that way File:Miaoli-County_Taiwan_Quanhua-Temple-03.jpg. And here non-static people in the room also increased the difficulty. Thanks for your review -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was it objectionable to them that you took a picture? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Nearly everybody on this side were taking selfies of them there, in front of these monks and nuns praying. Just we were very numerous, so not really allowed to stay long -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining, and I Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Blow lit areas in the central shrine and all along both sides. The crop/view focuses far too much on the rather boring ceiling, which the wide-angle view emphasises, and which correspondingly makes tiny the people and the shrine and other art works. I appreciate that some situations make HDR difficult but it can sometimes still be possible, or else expose lower and accept some noise, or else move to a Sony :-). I'll draw a suggested crop, though the resulting image is probably too small. -- Colin (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes too small, but also much less interesting without these several rows of symmetrical tables facing to each others, plus the quantity of religious statuettes embedded in the wall, not to be missed. So, definitely this crop I will keep, and I love the perspective effect of this ceiling. Thanks for the suggestion -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very interesting interior --A.Savin 08:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The support is for the rarity and complexity involved in taking such a photo. Otherwise we always get exteriors or empty interiors. I don't mind the big ceiling, church photos always include a lot of ceiling too, just not this kind that we are not used to. The vast space makes the people look humble, with a closer crop it looks just like any conference. The weak is because of the noted blown areas. At least they are not dulled to gray blobs as in a previous photo. You might want to try the trick for "almost HDR" you can do with just one photo. Make another version of this in Lightroom with a much lower exposure, place both photos as layers in Photohop on top of the original photo (that way you get the correct Exif from the original), the "underexposed" version in "the middle". After that you can erase overly bright areas in the top layer and let the darker layer shine through. Merge into a single layer. You can of course do a similar trick with the correction brush in LR, but it is often easier to control the whole thing in PS using different settings on the eraser. --Cart (talk) 09:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done If still not perfect, I find the result very much improved. Thanks a lot, Cart, for this interesting technique. Another advantage of using Photoshop here in this process is that we can selectively choose a color range from the menu Select, making the operation quite faster compared to Lightroom with the correction brush. I will keep this trick in mind for the future -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, much better. Artists always find it easier to do the finishing touches in PS since it's all about seeing the colors and the light as opposed to LR which is more about numbers. I'm more used to PS since I've used it for about 20 years now and LR for little more than one year. I hope to learn LR better and find all the little tricks in that one too. ;) Btw, I think your camera has the option to take 3 rapid photos with different preset +-EV? That is ideal for places like this. Press the button once and get 3 photos with different exposures. My camera does 3-7 different exposures and I love using it since you get instant options for blown areas. --Cart (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we have this option with Canon too from 2 to 7 automatic different exposures. Agree it's useful in such situation. Thanks for these constructive hints and clever recommendation -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing the "dulled to gray blobs" effect that Cart mentioned. This is particularly apparent in the "white now grey" flowers on either side of the shrine and the "specular metal reflection now actually darker than the surrounds" on the gold shrine. The wooden round object on the table near left had a bright highlight that is now dulled and surrounded by darkened wood. The woman on the right who was reading a brightly lit paper book is now reading a book made of recycled cardboard. And the man behind her is disappointed that his white t-shirt has turned mid-grey in the wash :-). Sometimes, blown is blown. -- Colin (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can't get it perfect with just a single photo, you can only rescue the not-really-blown areas surrounding the blown areas, but I still think this photo is rare enough (city skylines are not and I demand perfection of such photos) to warrant an FP per "A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph." Although that part of the FPC instructions also states that opinion wars can start here... Let's just agree to disagree instead of warring. --Cart (talk) 12:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very interesting subject, --Podzemnik (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support A shame for the crop on left and right, it would have been great to see the whole, but on the other side, the quality is good, the scene is very interesting and the room + perspective is just awesome --Poc o² 08:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was an ugly board, white color and eye-catching on the right, that couldn't be just cloned out but really needed to be cropped unfortunately, then the left side as well to keep the symmetry. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per Poco a poco. $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 08:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support either whole picture or crop. I'm OK with the former as it conveys the vastness of the space, but I can see the virtues of the latter as well. Yes, there are some technical shortcomings, but they're not too bad, and on the whole I like the idea of us having an Iliff-esque image of a non-Western religious interior. Daniel Case (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Glaciar Johns Hopkins, Parque Nacional Bahía del Glaciar, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-19, DD 122.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2018 at 05:49:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Johns Hopkins Glacier, Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska, United States. All by me, Poc o² 05:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 05:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The boat helps to give the scale. --Yann (talk) 06:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This may be a case of having "seen it before" since there have been quite a few of these nominations recently, but I'm also thinking about the standards we have gotten used to. Is this photo extraordinary, something exceptional? The sky is OK, with some nice clouds, but other than that, the light isn't great. The resolution isn't very high compared to the levels we have come to expect; we have had some really big panoramas in this same series recently, so this one doesn't reach the same level. The composition - again, nothing really wrong with it, but it feels like a tourist shot taken from a boat, a bit too easy. On the whole, then, no. As I've seen better in the not too distant past, this is not exceptional enough for me.--Peulle (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hasive • talk • 12:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Per Peulle. Did not even open the image : straight feeling of déjà vu -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Peulle. Also image downsized IMO -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty much per Peulle. I haven't really been here for a while, so no déjà vu for me. Still doesn't really talk to me. I'm sure that glacier has enormous amounts if "WOW" in real life, but I don't get that feeling from the image. --El Grafo (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I have to agree with the others. You might want to nominate something other than glaciers with gray skies for a while, unless you've got more photos of such a scene that are absolutely amazing. Strategically, giving people a variety of different subjects to look at can work better in appealing to voters. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 08:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olympic Roof Munich, July 2018 -03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2018 at 22:25:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
Info Detail of the tensile membrane roof of Munich's Olympiahalle in the Olympic Park, designed by Frei Otto. It was constructed for the 1972 Summer Olympics. Located in the Oberwiesenfeld neighborhood of Munich, the park continues to serve as a venue for cultural, social, and religious events. All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This reminds me very much your previous nomination before it was cropped, that means at the moment when King of Hearts opposed because "The composition looked haphazard, especially the bottom". To be honest, that's also my opinion here regarding this new version. Though not sure the clever suggestion by Cart to crop it would improve anything in this current case. Architecture elements, but overall too much chaotic for my personal taste. And your already promoted architecture photographs are usually much nicer and creative. This doesn't reach the level, I'm afraid. Sorry it really seems a bad shot of nothing, and the fact that it is too similar to the last candidature doesn't help neither :-( -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting you see it that way. To me the image has a clear structure: it’s divided into three zones that are separated diagonally. There’s the semi-transparent roof in the upper right and lower left corners, providing a frame for the main elements in between: the iconic steel pillar and the tent like part of the olympic hall itself, with the latter bending directly into the bottom right corner. I've chosen this composition to illustrate the organic character of the park’s general design. As you walk through the park you notice a constant variation of spots that are covered by the roof and those that let you see directly into the sky. That’s very idiosyncratic of the park but also difficult to catch with a camera. I thought I was successful here (I barely cropped a pixel) but maybe I’m simply too biased - having lived in Munich and not that far from the park for most of my life. —Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, searching for this park on Google, the building is interesting and I can understand your enthusiasm in trying to share that 3D design in picture. Only this pillar in the center is clearly an intruder in my view, communicating a feeling like "no function, just by chance in the field". And same for the small part of this pyramidal roof located bottom right, plus the similar part hidden behind on the left. The "organic character of the park’s general design" is not accessible to me through this composition, though I can roughly understand your intention. Organic should evoke nature, leaf, living elements, but here iron and glass are dominating, with a cloud in the sky. My review is subjective of course, and perhaps other users will find the image awesome -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Organic Architecture is defined by a philosophy "which promotes harmony between human habitation and the natural world. This is achieved through design approaches that aim to be sympathetic and well-integrated with a site, so buildings, furnishings, and surroundings become part of a unified, interrelated composition." That's basically the underlying concept of the Olympic Park in Munich. I understand that my nom does not convey this picture (half-pun intended), obviously. I do take your criticism very seriously but I'd be interested in other opinions as well, both from an aesthetic as well as from a purely photographic perspective. Withdrawing the nom after that certainly won't hurt me. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For a flow (organic or other) to work, it helps if the elements are connected in some way, literally or implicit. Here the detached roof part top right is the odd element out. --Cart (talk) 10:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Took a while to get to this but it's one of those images where while I think I understand what you were trying to communicate it just does not come through in the final picture. Daniel Case (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:March for Our Lives NYC (40812).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2018 at 21:21:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info A young protester holds a "mid-terms matter" sign during the March for Our Lives in New York City, a demonstration against gun violence in response to school shootings in the United States and related inaction by lawmakers. For those unfamiliar with the phrase, "mid-terms" are elections in the middle of a president's 4-year term. They are important in the election of legislators -- a third of the US Senate and all of the US House of Representatives are up for reelection, and thus it is often a focus for activists seeking to change the law (regarding guns, for example). I like this image because when she turned and faced me, the light really made her stand out from everyone else, and it's uncommon to see young people in the US who are passionate about voting. :) own work — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 22:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose People really should check their images for something as simple as chromatic aberrations before nominating them for FP ... Anyway, the composition seems a bit haphazard. This can be a good thing if it's a spur of the moment snapshot that still captures an intense or interesting moment, but I don't think this one reaches quite that standard. --Peulle (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peulle: Could you point out the CA? I removed quite a bit of it, but certainly could've missed some. I remain unclear as to the sort of composition people expect of subjects amid a moving demonstration like this. To me, seeing a single person in the middle of the crowd, wearing lighter clothing than her surroundings, catching the light while turning to face the camera with a big sign is pretty good -- even better when it captures what's significant about the event (young people getting involved in gun politics). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:07, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind re: CA. It looks like I accidentally undid some of my CA removal in Photoshop. Redoing now. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It just doesn't jump out at me as being exceptional. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the opposers, in that this is great documentation and excellent photo journalism, but not a great composition per se. However, I don't know if we should support a feature because it's great documentation and photo journalism, so I guess I will be Neutral. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For a mysterious reason, when I copy / paste this image on Photoshop, it becomes blueish. I was wondering if a crop could arrange the composition. I like this girl holding her board, but not the other person on the left in the foreground. My feeling is also close to King of Hearts's. Interesting action, but not an awesome enough picture IMO -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A good picture of a demonstration, and I'm glad that you go out and take these. However, it's really hard to shoot a demonstration in a way that makes it different from every other picture of a demonstration (your efforts are probably better than mine, though) and thus something we could feature (A problem I think no one wants to talk about is that the FP potential of demonstrations goes up when they become confrontations, and these days most don't (Most)). And I don't think most photographers want to get into that situation.
Nevertheless, keep at this. There's always potential for something unexpected and featurable that doesn't involve nightsticks and pepper spray. Daniel Case (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
that's that I withdraw my nomination — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vrouw op takken. Locatie. Stadspark Winschoten (d.j.b) 04.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2018 at 16:06:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Other Artwork.
Info Woman on branches. On the left a water curtain of a fountain. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Something seems wrong with the light. Blown highlights on the sculpture, and the colors look faded -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. I was thinking the same, just wasn't sure how to express it.--Peulle (talk) 10:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the comment.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caribú (Rangifer tarandus), Parque nacional y reserva Denali, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-30, DD 39.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2018 at 08:10:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla
Info Exemplar of Reindeer (Rangifer tarandus), Denali National Park‎, Alaska, United States. All by me, Poc o² 08:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 08:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's nice to see the antlers, but I'd rather see the animal's face not partly blocked by its body, some of which is in shadow. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. The focus also seems a bit soft.--Peulle (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 04:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 05:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Glaciar de Aialik, Bahía de Aialik, Seward, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-21, DD 54-56 PAN.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2018 at 21:47:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Aialik Glacier, Aialik Bay, Seward, Alaska, United States. All by me, Poc o² 21:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 21:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't find this one that remarkable, to be honest; the dull grey sky contribues very little.--Peulle (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really impressive at full size. I like the dead-on view of the end of the glacier and the shimmering reflections on the water. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The snow and/or ice is a little blue and the sky a bit dull and dark. In this case I think those two elements are adding something to the whole composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We had so many similar pictures of glaciers these last days, all with the same ice color, the same grey sky, the same dark rocks and the same water, now I miss the diversity, maybe like you Poco in this comment -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basile I'm not sure that you can compare both. Of course, both are galciers with terminus in the see but the pictures where taken in 2 different days and in 2 different locations (west and southwest Alaska) Poc o² 08:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain We can very much compare the moon from New York and the moon from Tokyo. All these last nominations (3), (4) are also very similar IMO. Now I feel like a redundancy -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Peulle. --Karelj (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Poc o² 08:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Buldern, Schloss Buldern -- 2015 -- 0060-4.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2018 at 13:20:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info created & uploaded by XRay - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 20:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice object and lighting, on the other side it looks overdone to me and the branches on the left are pretty disturbing --Poc o² 08:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That bush on the left is really annoying ...--Peulle (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Peulle --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many thanks to Tomer T for nominating my photograph. I'm always happy when one of my photographs is nominated. Sorry, but there is already another photograph of this series featured: File:Dülmen, Buldern, Schloss Buldern -- 2015 -- 0040-4.jpg. And it is IMO the better one. --XRay ^talk 05:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Not that this is bad, the other is just better.--Peulle (talk) 09:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Peulle. --Karelj (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Poco. Daniel Case (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tiles @ KL.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2018 at 03:58:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Rocks_and_Minerals#Others
Info: All by me. Decided to try taking pictures of textures, a bit abstract yet simple. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 03:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as nominator. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 03:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A little glary toward the center and doesn't really work for me as a composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okei I s'pose ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 04:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:View from Castillo de Santa Bárbara on Teguise.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2018 at 13:03:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 20:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Big photo but not very interesting to look at, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Aggressive noise reduction resulting in a image with acuarela effect and without texture in rocks, weeds, constructions, etc.. --Photographer 22:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Llez (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sète harbour sunrise 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2018 at 16:57:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely tones. --Code (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - and good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Code and Ikan -- P999 (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 22:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the bridge and don't know why it's there, except for the comfort of the tripod -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Basile. The area with the boats masts is nice against the sky but the left hand side, meh, and the wall and pavement on the right are ugly. The leading lines do not bring the eye any reward. -- Colin (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Basile and Colin. The colors are lovely and this is a QI beyond doubt, but ... they're right about there being too much bridge, and the clouds don't emphasize the leading lines enough as Colin says. Daniel Case (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 10:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: X support, X oppose, X neutral → not featured. /--Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 10:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gray granite rocks in front of red granite cliff in Rixö.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2018 at 10:58:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry#Sweden
Info This is what the quay in this photo looks like from sea level. All by me -- Cart (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not really spectacular enough for me. Maybe if it was a natural rock formation, but it's not.--Peulle (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support High resolution + moderately high "wow" factor = FP for me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent use of combined images to create a stunningly detailed work. I like the house and harbor at the right. Daniel Case (talk) 22:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Uneven sky brightness (probably due to vignetting of the individual shots) and overall a little dull colors. --MB-one (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MB-one, please don't use the 'weak' or 'strong' templates since FPCBot can't read those. Use only standard with piping. I have fixed this for you here. You could probably also read this to get all of the info. --Cart (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Cart (talk) 22:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Working at the consolidation of a wooden footbridge in Luang Prabang, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2018 at 04:21:09 (UTC)

Side view
Front view
Three-quarter view

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People_at_work
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great series --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's good that the people appear with a certain sharpness.--Peulle (talk) 11:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as a set. I'm not sure this fulfils the requirements of a FP set. We currently lack a concept of a series or story for a group of pictures, where they have merit as a group, but not necessarily all FP in their own right. Perhaps that's something to consider. Here I think only the middle is an FP, with strong interaction between the workers. In the first, it is unclear what the guys are doing, and one of them is just standing vacantly. They are also tiny in the frame. In the last, the top worker is also in an unclear and awkward pose, which spoils things. I think that when photographing workers, the thing that takes it to FP is capturing the right moment, when the body, hands, eye-line, position are all working positively to create a great moment. And a pair/group of people working together, need to be seen to be working together. The first and last photos don't have that. -- Colin (talk) 11:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as a set per Colin. Though I would actually support the first photo simply as a landscape. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will support only first photo as FP candidate -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support, pace Colin et al. I recognize the work being done and don't see anyone standing vacantly. In the first one, correct me if I'm wrong, but what I see is that the man on the bridge is holding a big stick while looking at the man below, and both of them are moving it into position. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation too -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin. --Karelj (talk) 07:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin and King. Daniel Case (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination and may renominate each of them separately. As I read each comment, the first picture seems to gather 7 supports out of 9 votes, the second picture 8/9, and the third one only 5/9. Because I've got alternatives for this last shot, hopefully all of them (or similar) have a chance to succeed here. Thanks for the reviews -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mozo de espada (sword servant) on the Plaza De Toros De La Maestranza. Seville, Spain.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2018 at 12:15:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Ввласенко - uploaded by Ввласенко - nominated by Ввласенко -- Ввласенко (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I'm not seeing what makes this image extraordinary.--Peulle (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I just love the expression, but it's not sharp enough (and kind of small). Daniel Case (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Ввласенко (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bovec Kluže Flitscher Klause West-Seite 10032015 0609.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2018 at 09:12:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 09:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much shadow in the front and the main object is also too shadowed --Michielverbeek (talk) 09:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This one is quite interesting, not too far away from a support vote in my book. I'd like a bit more sharpness, though, and the light is slightly unfortunate, as Michielverbeek points out. If the sun could just shine a bit more on the actual building ...--Peulle (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --СССР (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 07:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to agree with Michielverbeek. The wow effect is limited to me and the lighting just kills it --Poc o² 08:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 12:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support It just works for me, I wowed a lot when I saw it among QIC. According to my experience, lightening is barely ever ideal and what matters is photographer's work with it. I think the light here was handled pretty well. It could have been sharper though, especially on the right side of the building. But the number of megapixels make it up for me. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Michiel. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Michielverbeek and Peulle. And also, I think, shooting during the winter, with the accompanying slope a dull ochre, doesn't do the castle any tonal favors. Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support imo, I'm the on the contrary about the lighting. I love how the shadow works around the building, it's enchanting. However, Peulle has it right about the sharpness. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 03:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mt. Annapurna Jpg 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2018 at 09:12:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Nepal
Info Aerial view of Annapurna Massif consisting Annapurna II, Annapurna III, Annapurna IV, Machapuchare, Gangapurna and Annapurna South Mountains. created by Tsewang Lama - uploaded by Tsewang Lama - nominated by Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 09:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 09:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Below 2MP, and white balance is off. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is not below 2MP, it is 3,110 by 1,687 pixels = 5.25Mpx. It is does however have some strange coloring, probably taken through a tinted airplane window. --Cart (talk) 09:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

true, my mistake, still not a FP, in my opinion due to white balance --PierreSelim (talk) 12:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 11:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose I've had it with these downsized images. This is 2018 (image shot in 2017), the camera was able to shoot 5184×3456 pixels and we get only 3110×1687. It's a fairly "easy to take" nature format shot, so no cropping is necessary either. I cannot accept that this is "one of the finest images on Commons". Get it together, people.--Peulle (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that as long as we have the 2 MPx minimum, people will think it's ok to nominate photos that are downsized as long as they stay well above that limit. Perhaps you should start a discussion about higher, say 5Mpx, limit. Seeing that many photos here lately that got the "too small" comment, it might be time. --Cart (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a discussion about increasing the minimum guideline is warranted, sure, but what really gripes me is that some people think that images should be given a quality stamp as long as they are above the minimum. They don't seem to grasp what "minimum" means, and they don't seem to read the rest of the guidelines, for instance that images should not be downsized (there's a reason that guideline is there) and that reviewers may demand more from "easy to take" images. Also, this isn't even QI - it's FP, meaning we're looking for the best of the best, not just a picture that's above the minimum level required. Everyone should always post images of the highest quality they can. Some people don't seem to understand that. OK, end rant. I'll see about opening a discussion at a later date.--Peulle (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Colors are too dark and yellowish. Also some details are missing at full size -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - May be encyclopedically valuable (i.e., perhaps a VI), but in addition to the above objections, the composition is good but not IMO great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. I suspect the image was taken through the window of a commercial airliner, and the glass tint resulted in the yellowish WB. I'll admit that this could be easily corrected, but then there's the downsizing issue. Daniel Case (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

House in Vieux-Limoilou, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2018 at 22:50:41 (UTC)

House in Vieux-Limoilou in winter
House in Vieux-Limoilou in summer

Info All by -- Photographer 22:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ordinary house with dull sky and bothering car in each, and both of them need perspective correction -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ... and the white balance on the right one does look off. Anyhow, neither of these look particularly spectacular to me.--Peulle (talk) 10:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The cars don't bother me, but I basically agree with Basile - I'd say this is a nice QI series, mostly because to me, there's nothing outstanding about the composition that overrides the mundanity of the scene. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 05:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 08:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Mini -- 2016 -- 5087-93.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2018 at 13:23:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
Info created & uploaded by XRay - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose - Not to take anything away from the photograph/photographer -- they're good quality -- but I'm uncomfortable with the fact that we already have 3 FPs of this car with a giant advertisement on it (1, 2, 3). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 20:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I'm inclined to agree with Rhododendrites. Aside from that, this road with the trees and misty light, might look better without the car or perhaps with someone on a bike or walking. --Cart (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks to Tomer T for nominating my photograph. It's good to see one of my photographs nominated. I'm happy if my pictures please others.
I'm wondering about a reason for rejection that there are already two pictures of this car as excellent picture (the third one is another car). IMO if a photograph is good enough it should be possible to have more than one FP. (Yes, the photographs itself should be differently enough.) Could you imagine to have only one FP of the Golden Gate Bridge? I know, it isn't a good comparison. But it's FPC, not VIC. --XRay ^talk 05:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FP is also about selecting and I think the three first photos are better and much more interesting than this. A fourth photo of this car has to be at least as interesting as they are. Here the trees are dominating so the photo becomes "half car, half trees". I'd rather see a nice shot of these trees. --Cart (talk) 08:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the trees only: File:Dülmen, Börnste, Waldweg -- 2015 -- 4649.jpg. It's already FP. ;-) --XRay ^talk 09:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Q E D. :-) --Cart (talk) 10:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support The composition really stands out to me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Rhododendrites.--Ermell (talk) 07:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Rhododendrites and Cart; also the background could be sharper even though the car is the subject. Daniel Case (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Würfelzucker -- 2018 -- 3564.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2018 at 04:20:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food_and_drink#Food
Info created and uploaded Sugar cubes nominated by XRay ^talk 04:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 04:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I see a little noise around the upper cubes at 300% of my laptop's screen, but the view of the light through the sugar cubes is quite compelling. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Tomas--Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good idea, nice setting and great quality. I could be wrong but I've the impression that it's tilted in ccw direction. --Poc o² 08:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not easy to make a decision, vertical or not. IMO it is OK. --XRay ^talk 08:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Irresistible. --Cart (talk) 08:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 10:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 11:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GeXeS (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Heavy background noise fixable --Photographer 22:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't see any remarkable noise. The black cardboard is very rough. Is there a confusion? --XRay ^talk 03:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My conclusion about the noise is based on the depth of field, the black background is not focused and the pattern of noise is repeated regularly throughout the image. --Photographer 16:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then its a cardboard --Photographer 16:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support An everyday object transcendently photographed. Daniel Case (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support NC Hasive • talk • 12:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 05:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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