Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/July 2022

File:Ngaben di Nusa Penida.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2022 at 18:52:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Traditions
Info created & uploaded by Imadedana - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kritzolina (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes please! This is a ritual I've never seen and quite an amazing image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 08:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cbrescia (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Ivar (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Exotic and original, but technically the highlights are blown -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is certainly a fascinating subject, but the lighting (midday, summer, backlit) does the scene no wonders. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question What does "summer" mean in Bali? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- A machine translation told me "musim panas". Not exactly sure if it's accurate. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Musim panas" is "hot season." I don't know what that means in regard to light. When I lived in Malaysia, the sun rose and set at almost exactly the same time every day, and Bali isn't far enough south of the Equator for things to be much different there. Our musim panas was a drought season with fewer clouds than usual, almost no rain and oppressive heat, almost devoid of sea breezes. "Musim sejuk" ("cold season") there was the monsoon season, when a ceremony like the one pictured here would have been impossible; I don't think Bali has equally severe monsoons, but I don't know how severe they are. There was a rest of the year, when it sometimes rained and sometimes didn't and there was a regular sea breeze along the Terengganu coast where I lived. This was in the 70s, though, and by my 2nd visit to Malaysia in 2003, global warming had made everything more irregular. This is from the "Climate" section of w:Bali: "Being just 8 degrees south of the equator, Bali has a fairly even climate all year round. Average year-round temperature stands at around 30 °C (86 °F) with a humidity level of about 85%.Daytime temperatures at low elevations vary between 20 to 33 °C (68 to 91 °F), but the temperatures decrease significantly with increasing elevation." And from the "Climate" section of Wikivoyage's star-rated article on Bali: "Daytime temperatures are pleasant, varying between 20–33⁰C (68–93⁰F) year-round. From December to March, the west monsoon can bring heavy showers and high humidity, but days are still often sunny with the rains starting in the late afternoon or evening and passing quickly. From June to September, the humidity is low and it can be quite cool in the evenings. At this time of the year there is hardly any rain in the lowland coastal areas. Even when it is raining across most of Bali, you can often enjoy sunny, dry days on the Bukit Peninsula which receives far less rain than any other part of the island. On the other hand, in central Bali and in the mountains, you should not be surprised by cloudy skies and showers at any time of the year." All for what it's worth. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That's actually pretty cool! Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the insight, Ikan! This is one thing I love about the FPC page: one can learn so many things here. --Aristeas (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. My artist father was frustrated that it was impossible to even sketch sunsets in Malaysia, because they took 20 minutes from start to complete darkness. Light conditions are not the same in equatorial zones as in temperate zones. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ Support After looking more closely at the subject and other information (See above), I've reconsidered. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Per Basile. I also agree with King about the lack of special lighting or higher detail but still the wow overcompensates that Poco a poco (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -sasha- (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 09:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#Traditions

File:Crab spider with bee prey (Andrena sp.), Romania (34641704253) (cropped).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2022 at 22:10:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida#Family : Thomisidae (Crab Spiders)
Info Crab spider with prey Andrena hattorfiana on Knautia arvensis, created by Frank Vassen - uploaded by Helmy oved - nominated by Lupe -- Lupe (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lupe (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exceptional image. --Tagooty (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Cbrescia (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 06:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Two in one :-) Basile Morin (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida#Family : Thomisidae (Crab Spiders)

File:Pez ángel real (Pygoplites diacanthus), parque nacional Ras Muhammad, Egipto, 2022-03-26, DD 155.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2022 at 21:36:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Order_:_Perciformes_(Perch-like_Fishes)
Info Royal angelfish (Pygoplites diacanthus), Ras Muhammad National Park, Red Sea, Egypt. The body of the royal angelfish is moderately elongate, is very compressed and can reach a length of up to 25 centimetres (9.8 in) It's widely distributed throughout the Indo-Pacific and can be found in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean around East Africa and the Maldives, stretching to the Tuamoto Islands, New Caledonia, and Great Barrier Reef. The royal angelfish occurs at depths ranging from 0 to 80m (0 to 262 ft), in coral rich areas of lagoons, reefs, and are also often found in the vicinity of caves. It is a carnivorous species that feeds on sponges and tunicates located throughout reefs and underwater caves. They are a non-migratory species that can be found solitary, in pairs, or groups. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Probably the most spectacular fish I've ever seen underwater in terms of colors. We have no FPs of the whole family Pomacanthidae (marine angelfishes). -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~marine angelfish.~~ description edited Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Poco a poco. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 06:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 07:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Fish#Order_:_Perciformes_(Perch-like_Fishes)

File:Wachau von Dürnsteiner Kanzel 20220411.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2022 at 08:05:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria#Lower_Austria
Info Wachau, view from Dürnsteiner Kanzel, municipality of Dürnstein, Lower Austria. All by me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition feels unbalanced to me, too left-heavy. It is also partly backlit, which only really works when there is bright translucent vegetation to catch the sunlight. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is nice IMHO but I think it’s a bit overexposed (clouds partly blown, colours a bit washed out). What really bothers me is some kind of resolution issue, maybe some heavy noise reduction overdone. While some rock outcrops appear crisp sharp, there are trees at the same distance which are super soft. Overall I don’t think the sharpness / detail resolution is up to today’s standards, and, as I said, the midday light is somehow boring. Might be better at sunrise or sunset from the same spot. Is a raw file of this shot available? --Kreuz schnabel 10:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Kreuzschnabel, can you please give me a hint / an annotation where you see the sharpness issue. Regards, Uoaei1 (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Annotation added as an example. I see things like that all over the frame. --Kreuz schnabel 12:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am really sorry because I actually like this view. But I have to agree that the light is not very appealing and, more important, that the camera has missed the focus – it seems to be somewhere in the foreground, as the trees at the bottom right show. It’s a pity but autofocus failures happen, I have experienced this myself. --Aristeas (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, sorry. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Europäische Zentralbank Frankfurt.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2022 at 14:05:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
Info all by Der Wolf im Wald -- Wolf im Wald 14:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 14:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fascinating details.--Ermell (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive. --Aristeas (talk) 07:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Although I like the architecture more than the picture. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Simply wow! -- Radomianin (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support a tad noisy and heavy handed on clarity but very nice and clean (empty street) architecture shot. - Benh (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I dissent. Certainly a good QI (with the caveats mentioned above), but basically very well-done and probably a good promotional image, but no great composition to me. The shapes of clouds would need to cooperate more, especially since all that blacktop is boring to look at. Basically, this photo looks very colorlessly corporate to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Impressive composition to me but it’s overall rather noisy, especially the glass panes and building edges, there’s much "burbling" as if from heavy noise-reduction processing. Might be air turbulence as well. I am aware we’re talking about 36 megapixels here but it just bothers me. --Kreuz schnabel 06:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the architecture of the buildings and the composition but agree with the comments about, quality (which is usually superb is Thomas's images) and lighthing are just ok and wow is pretty moderate Poco a poco (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan Kekek -- Karelj (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The colorless-corporate aspect to me makes the picture work. This is the headquarters of the most important international central bank in the world, and one of the most important central banks in the world. It should look like this ... this is its truth. Having it in a crowded parking lot with lots of pedestrians under bright sunlight and a sky full of little fluffy clouds would obscure that truth. Daniel Case (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You make your point well, but when the truth is boring, does that make for a great photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support JukoFF (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fausta Labia, porträtt - SMV - H5 028 - Restoration.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2022 at 16:52:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/People/Portrait#Women
Info Uncredited - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Your usual excellent restoration skills --Kritzolina (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 04:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work --Tagooty (talk) 08:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent restauration of a tender portrait. --Aristeas (talk) 07:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support SVeach94 (talk) 01:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People/Portrait#Women

File:Origanum vulgare inflorescence - Keila.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2022 at 18:33:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Lamiaceae
Info all by Ivar (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing, considering how small the petals are. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 04:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 14:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Poco a poco (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Again a wonderful ‘portrait’ of an inflorescence, thank you, Ivar! --Aristeas (talk) 07:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very detailed and good light -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Weird Tales May 1924.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2022 at 17:34:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Printed#Magazine_and_newspaper_illustrations_in_color
Info created by Weird Tales [R.M. Mally] - uploaded by User:Prosfilaes - nominated by PDMagazineCoverUploading -- PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- High-resolution, well-drawn historical magazine cover in color. PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Don't we all wish magazines could be worth fifty cents nowadays? — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is in good condition, and though it could be bigger, I don't think that's essential, so I'll give it a little love. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Honestly surprised this doesn't have more votes. It looks way better than most of the Weird Tales covers, which mostly have that very Archive.org-y low-quality JPEG look. This one's flaws seem entirely inherent to the original pulp magazine publication. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support SVeach94 (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Printed#Magazine_and_newspaper_illustrations_in_color

File:Zaaddozen van een Ratelaar (Rhinanthus) 26-06-2022. (d.j.b) 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2022 at 17:44:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Orobanchaceae
Info Seed pods of a Rhinanthus. Focus stack of 26 photos.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 04:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good picture of a very interesting subject. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support There are a few spots that are slightly blurry. Maybe the focus was shifted a little bit too much so there wasn't a single image that is perfectly sharp in those spots. Overall, though, that's criticism on a very high level. The picture is impressive! I love the colours and the light! -- Wolf im Wald 14:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I marked the blurry spots, please see the image notes. -- Wolf im Wald 14:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support looks like at least one frame was not in focus. --Ivar (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. New version. Thank you for your comments.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please revert cloned part, that's not a good practice. --Ivar (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clone undone. Thank you.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Poco a poco (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't support this photo yet; I just marked two stitching lines that form a right angle. Otherwise, the photo merits the star, although I prefer the composition of File:Zaaddozen van een Ratelaar (Rhinanthus) 26-06-2022. (d.j.b) 01.jpg. I think that's different enough that it could also be nominated. Would you consider doing so? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. Sorry I don't see your note.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support I can't see the faults! Looks very nice. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Coprinopsis lagopus-20220513-RM-100643.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2022 at 21:29:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Close-up of a Coprinopsis lagopus (harefoot mushroom)

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family : Psathyrellaceae
Info Close-up of a Coprinopsis lagopus (harefoot mushroom), height approx. 3 cm . All by me -- Ermell (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, one of the best mushroom photos I've seen on this site. Please add size info in your file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 07:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the bokeh and the management of the light. This long stem is amazing, but the bottom is distracting in my view. It's so small, like a bad crop. Why not cutting it out? The length effect would be amplified, and the composition improved In my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Info I left the floor extra so that you can see the length approximately. The fungus is very small. If I cut off the floor you might think the stem is much longer.--Ermell (talk) 12:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support you on this, for whatever that's worth, though I agre with Charles that a bit more soil might be better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I prefer the other one -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should probably be cropped to not show that bit of dirt on the bottom. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It could be cropped more or less, both would be better than just of bit of soil. More might be better. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support though I'd like to see a (small) bit more of the bottom. --Cayambe (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The dirt at the bottom gives context. --Tagooty (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cropped version[edit]

Info @Urban Versis 32: @Charlesjsharp: @Basile Morin: @Ikan Kekek: @Aristeas: @Cayambe: Unfortunately, there is no more soil available. Please have a look at the cropped version.--Ermell (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like it better - No soil is better than a tiny bit of soil, which would seem a little out of place to me. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Me too. Either no soil or more than a tiny bit. --Lupe (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This version is obviously more beautiful, the first one more educative, I’m fine with each of them. --Aristeas (talk) 05:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support For aesthetic reasons, I prefer the alternative version. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This version has something artistic in its appearance -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 12:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would have supported this version if it had been the only one that was nominated, but I prefer the other version and therefore don't feel inclined to vote on this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree, the crop is better here Poco a poco (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't help but think that the bit of dirt shows the height, while the crop doesn't give an idea of the real height. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think the height is too much of a problem with bokeh this good. Daniel Case (talk) 02:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I support the other version. --Tagooty (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 20:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 11:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Coprinopsis lagopus-2-20220513-RM-100643.jpg

File:Corbusierhaus, Berlin-msu-2021-2276-.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2022 at 08:36:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
Info created by Matthias Süßen - uploaded by Matthias Süßen - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 08:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 08:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting subject. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very good but just a little noisy at full size. Would it be worth tinkering with that or not? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentDear Ikan Kekek. Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately, I can not change anything right now, because I'm on the road (until mid-July). I'll try to implement your suggestions when I'm back. But I have to tell you that I have it as a print hanging on my wall. Sharpness and noise are ok imho. --Matthias Süßen (talk) 08:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fair enough. Enjoy your trip, and I'll look forward to whatever you can come up with. I'd be happy if you ping me when you make the edit. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think Le Corbusier would have liked that picture --Kritzolina (talk) 07:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The composition emphasizes the artistic quality of Le Corbusier’s building. Some parts could be a tiny little bit sharper, but anyway it’s a great photo. --Aristeas (talk) 07:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 05:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 04:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support Wish it was a bit sharper in some places. Daniel Case (talk) 03:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 11:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kaohsiung Music Center and Great Tiger Bridge during 2022 Taiwan Lantern Festival.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2022 at 12:09:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Taiwan
Info created and uploaded by Tiouraren - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Amazing! I set this image as my desktop background, which I do not change very often. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is the foreground on the very left so blurry? It's probably not because of the f/25 aperture. Does this platform float on water? -- Wolf im Wald 14:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the anchorage ropes of the plattform now. Sorry for the question! -- Wolf im Wald 14:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Impressive exposure of two minutes! -- Wolf im Wald 14:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Weird, unusual, futuristic sight to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per other supporters. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Classy composition. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding architectural night shot. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Many thanks for the nomination and likes! --Tiouraren (talk) 06:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 06:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support the quality is suprisingly good for f/25, and it's nice to have the full reflection, even though it's at the cost having the bridge on the left (but I guess others may like it). I wish we had more original interesting architecture like this in France. - Benh (talk) 07:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan, Frank, and Benh. --Aristeas (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 13:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition and night shot -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fascinating.--Ermell (talk) 06:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking composition. --Tagooty (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful. (A minor, little bit disturbing light spot at the right.) --XRay 💬 04:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a balloon, not a light spot. It was quite windy so I couldn't get a static image of it. -- Tiouraren (talk) 05:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 10:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 27 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 12:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Long-branded blue crow (Euploea algea menetriesii) underside Phi Phi.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2022 at 21:34:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)
Info One FP of this genus. Here is the wing upperside. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this one. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 12:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice but in the meanwhile we have over 100 images of this species and this one is not really standing out. We had a similar discussion about Llez shells a few days ago. Sharpness is good and aligned with most of those FPs but not superior like we have seen sometimes (I talk about works like this or this of people like Sven Damerow). I also have some FPs in that category but I've to agree that my works are not exceptional anymore in comparison to those. Nothing against you, Charles, I talk in general about this kind of motif Poco a poco (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the 100 images @Poco a poco: ? I can find 7 images of ths species and three of this subspecies (two are mine). One of the examples you mention is a dragonfly! What is your point? It's a rare butterfly. How can it stand out more? And by the way, this photo is of an active butterfly. Sven Damerow's lovely images are of inactive butterflies in the early morning. Hard work to get up in the morning. Hard work to find them, for sure. But any inactive subject is inherently easier to photograph than an active subject. Charlesjsharp (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant that we have a lot of FPs of this family, we have 196 in total. That's more than what we have in many other orders or even classes. I'm confused now about your statements, you wrote in the nomination that we have only one FP of this genus and say now that it's a rare butterfly (if true I'd consider to strike my neutral and leave it as a comment, btw this kind of data is for me relevant to decide the vote, specially with so many similar images already) but you say now that there are 7 FPs of the species. Long story short what I meant above is that having so many FPs already in this area I just expect more (more detail, great compo, special lighting, rare subject). It's clear to me that Sven's shots are taken during cold mornings with insects being inactive but the level of detail is definitely a big wow factor and that's why I consider those shots at a higher level than all others in the category. Yes, I included a dragonfly but also a butterfly, and there are others among his portfolio, but that's not my point. Poco a poco (talk) 09:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are 7 images on Commons of this species, not 7 FPs. Nymphalidae are the largest butterfly family with 6000+ coloutful species, so I would expect many FPs. I don't know how voters judge each FP - some may value rarity, some will judge the image on its merits. A brown butterfly will not be as popular as a pretty one. With this species, I can't find a higher quality image on the Internet, but there will likely be one somewhere not indexed by Google. Is that worth something at FPC? If we compare this butterfly species with the clownfish Amphiprion bicinctus (your current FPC), on Google there are hundreds of photos and 88 on Commons. So a rather different photgraphic challenge as is the issue of Llez shells that you raised. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral nice, but details lost on bright spots. --Ivar (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Part of the flower is out of focus. The background of the butterfly is too dark for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't like the out of focus flower either, but it's not too distracting --Lupe (talk) 10:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Daniel Case (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 3 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)

File:Paraskevi of Iconium church in Kwiatoń (Квятонь).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2022 at 11:56:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Poland
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Not sharp at pixel level, but great otherwise. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Too unsharp for a 6 MP image in 2022. Otherwise I like it, though I would crop away some distractions on the left. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others – nice composition and light indeed, but the quality is just not there. Consider a slight crop as suggested to get rid of the power pole to the left and the tree on the right. --Kreuz schnabel 19:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per King of Hearts & Urban Versis 32. The resolution is too low. -- Wolf im Wald 05:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral To appreciate also the good things: The perspective is a good choice, the light and shadows (at least on the church) are nice, the colours are natural and attractive. In this regard this is probably the best of our photographs of the church, and IMHO it has even some ‘wow’ effect – the photo immediately makes me want to visit that church (this is why I don’t oppose). The problem is in the detail, as already stated. One could argue whether 6,8 megapixels are still OK for this kind of photograph in 2022 or not, but even when we allow that resolution there is still the problem that at pixel level the image looks like a slightly unsharp photo which has been oversharpened in post-processing – fine details and microcontrast are missing, the coarse details are a bit oversharpened. (It looks like the lens is not able to outresolve the sensor of the D3100, which is a bit astonishing given that the sensor has only 14.2 megapixels. Or the JPEG engine of the camera has already sharpened the image in a rather coarse way and post-processing has amplified that effect. So maybe optimizing the post-processing with a more fine-tuned sharpening could at least improve the situation.) --Aristeas (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Pudelek (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Polydrusus formosus copulating during monsoon season.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2022 at 22:38:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family : Curculionidae (Snout Beetles)
Info Green leaf weevils copulating during monsoon season in Kathmandu; created and uploaded by Prasan Shrestha - nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 22:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator, though could someone please make the FP gallery more specific? -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 22:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could be a great VI, but I'm not sure about FP. It's too bad the male's back is so blurry, for example. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too many parts blurred --Lupe (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per Lupe, but I like the scene! There is a wow IMO. -- Wolf im Wald 05:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Yes, it’s a very good composition but rather blurry and noisy as well. There seems to be considerable motion blur in addition to the shallow DoF. Looks really wow-y in preview though. Not decided yet. --Kreuz schnabel 07:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Depth of field is too shallow for FP, but this picture is a great document for Wikipedia -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination UnpetitproleX (Talk) 16:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olive-backed sunbird (Cinnyris jugularis flammaxillaris) female Phi Phi.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2022 at 14:58:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Nectariniidae (Sunbirds and Spiderhunters)
Info Feeding on non-native yellow oleander. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good subject. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition and good sharpness, considering the size of the bird (and if they're like hummingbirds, their tendency to be in constant motion). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 08:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC) Mistake, sorry.--Ermell (talk) 06:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Vote early and vote often". Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Lupe (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Nectariniidae (Sunbirds and Spiderhunters)

File:Indian rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2022 at 11:23:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Order_:_Perissodactyla_(Odd-toed_ungulates)
Info created and uploaded by Charlesjsharp - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 11:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good quality, though I ask myself if the image would have been better as a 3/4 view rather than head-on. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 12:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for the nomination. Our guide parked the safari vehicle about 100m from this grazing rhino. It spotted us and ran at us, stopping very close. The guide told us to get away from the sides of the vehicle. My 100-400mm zoom lens was on 100mm. The guide banged the side of the Landrover hard to make a noise and the rhino moved away. Incidentally, the Nepalese smog is visible in the background. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Run! -- Wolf im Wald 12:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I spontaneously said "Wow!" out loud when looking at the thumbnail, and it's great at full size. I think the impact is probably greater with the image being head-on than if it were 3/4. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent capture of a rhinoceros charging. Rare action, well frozen. Very nice and detailed at full resolution. -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Yes, the head-on is a welcome change from the useful, but more common 3/4 view. --Aristeas (talk) 07:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 07:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as Basile Morin said, an "excellent capture". —Bruce1ee^talk 07:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 11:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per other supporters. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've never seen good photos of rhinoceros head-on outside David Attenborough documentaries. Indeed very rare to see. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support If you weren't here to nominate and tell us how you took it, I'd expect to have read "And this was the last picture found on the photographer's camera ..." Daniel Case (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals#Order_:_Perissodactyla_(Odd-toed_ungulates)

File:2019-08-13 02 LEYNIR - IMO 9126388.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2022 at 14:57:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport#Boats
Info Tugs are everyday, working boats, found in every port. This image of the Icelandic pusher tug, Leynir, leaving Reykjavik harbor heading out into Faxaflói Bay and a storm coming off Mount Esja, has good visual elements with approaching rough weather. - c/u/n by GRDN711 -- GRDN711 (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GRDN711 (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems to be a bit tilted, otherwise great. Yann (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Uploaded new version wiht slight tilt correction. --GRDN711 (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Info I fixed off-target annotations on the image. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, without prejudice to any tilt correction. The rainbow and the bird really help the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely composition per Ikan Kekek. Maybe a tiny bit tilted --Lupe (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't really see what's exceptional here. What are the good visual elements? I wouldn't qualify the small lighthouse or the tiny feint rainbow as such - Benh (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As for visual elements, there’s the boat, the lighthouse, the cloudburst, the rainbow, and the mountain. With four of them lined up away from the viewer and thus virtually covering each other, I don’t see an outstanding composition here, even if each of the elements may be pretty. Imagine the same pic with a clear sky, eliminating cloudburst and rainbow – that would make it matter-of-fact with no fairy touch in it but I think it would work better that way. --Kreuz schnabel 08:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Kreuzschnabel: @Benh: @Poco a poco: Let me suggest three visual elements to think about.

The Leynir (off-center vertically) is driving through unsettled waters towards the horizon to intersect dynamically just outside of the frame (a little tension there).
On the other side is the yellow Norðurgarði lighthouse which anchors a triangle of asynchronous colors, playing with the orange-red super-structure of the moving boat and the green ropes on the deck.
Blue skies are fine but for me, billowing clouds and rain rolling off Mount Esja onto Faxaflói Bay suggests some drama of rough weather that the boat is moving into. The hint of rainbow, and even the distant bird in flight, are extras.

As suggested, I have re-cropped the Leynir to be a little more off-center and I like it better. --GRDN711 (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree with Benh and Kreuzschnabel, the main subject, the boat, is centered, that makes the image too static (boring) --Poco a poco (talk) 09:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for tilt correction. Being the most colourful elements, the yellow lighthouse and the partially red boat offer IMHO enough tension to make the composition interesting, and the stormy weather gives it the right atmosphere. --Aristeas (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh -- Karelj (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per GRDN711. --El Grafo (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC) P.S. The boat is not centered[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh. The lighthouse or the boat by themselves work as the subject. Together, they're competing and making this picture busy. Daniel Case (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Water transport#Boats

File:Protest of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in Times Square (62507).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2022 at 13:11:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/People#Events
Info A father and son at a rally in support of Ukraine in Times Square, NYC. Yes, the background is busy and the light is a bit harsh, but I keep coming back to this shot. Demonstrations like this are typically full of anger and desperation, and I was struck by the tone of pride and hopefulness here, which I think is well summarized in this guy's expression. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really like this image, but I have a serious personality rights concern, even more with a child being in the picture. Did the father consent to this image going public under a free licence? --Kritzolina (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- In the US, when people are in public there's not a requirement to ask for permission to photograph or publish photographs. At a demonstration like this, it's generally expected that people want to be visible/photographed/documented. That said, I do make it a habit to ask (and always when children are involved), and did ask permission in this case. I don't make it a habit of chatting with people about what licensing the photos will have, though (??). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - SupportThank you for that answer, that is good enough for me to support this. --Kritzolina (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I have added a {{Consent}} tag to the image page to address this. Daniel Case (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This picture really resonated within me. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like it, original and the picture talks to me but the ligthing is really difficult for a kind of portrait Poco a poco (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In a mass of pictures this one wouldn't really stick out to me as exceptional with the lighting and background. Maybe if it was just the kid in the center --Lupe (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As it happens, we have a mass of pictures. :) I hope you/others will nominate the ones which do stand out. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support FP means stand out. As Rhododendrites has appropriately stated, the man's expression stands out extraordinarily. His poignant face outweighs the unfavorable lighting conditions. I also think I see tears in the son's eyes. Maybe I can't be completely impartial with an Ukrainian family member, but the picture touches me deeply! -- Radomianin (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Poco for the light. Some obvious blown out chunks, and the one on the forehead breaks the deal, as does the fact that the kid and the ~~presumed~~ father don't look in the same direction. - Benh (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh.--Ermell (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cut feet of the child. Also the hair is distracting at the right. Agree with Benh's review too -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose This is a nice, moodful, emotional shot of the protest. It would suit every article on this event very good. Taken out of context, it will lose quite a lot of that. Viewing it just as a picture, there’s all the circumstances you can hardly avoid in a demonstration like this: cut-off neighbouring persons, cluttered and busy background, harsh light. The missing feet don’t bother me that much here, since nearly the father’s entire body has been cut off as well :) you have to pick a crop of course, and it’s not bad, that’s not the problem here. The picture, as it is, is just too arbitrary, too common in such a gathering in my eyes to get a feature for being outstanding. If only the background were a bit more blurred :) --Kreuz schnabel 09:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support the lighting doesn't really bother me much. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Sorry, but the image does not stand out to me. That said, it doesn't 'not stand out' enough for me to oppose either. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 08:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not exceptional. --Tagooty (talk) 08:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Yes, there are blown or near-blown highlights. Yes, the background is a little cluttered. Yes, there's an awkward crop at lower right. But nonetheless I think the pose is great and has huge symbolic value ... the boy, dressed in Ukraine's colors and holding a Ukrainian flag, is literally being supported by his father (also in Ukrainian colors). So in supporting his son he is also supporting Ukraine. Daniel Case (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Victor Adam after Louis Choris - Vue du Presidio san Francisco, 1822.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2022 at 01:41:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Exteriors#Towns
Info created by Victor Adam after Louis Choris - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info Well, the issue of my backlog at Commons is cleared. (Pity I now have a thirteen-image backlog at en-wiki, because there just aren't enough voters there at the moment, so I keep having to hold back images until the older ones have a chance to process). Also the first year... ever... I've had more Commons FPCs than en-Wiki. I normally edit out a bunch of works from my list that I don't think will pass here due to the differing standards, and while I'm sure that's still true, that thirteen-image backlog (almost all Commons FPs as well) is enough to put Commons into an easy win. But I just wanted to vent a bit.) Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent restoration of an important and painful document. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PuckMagazine26Oct1881.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2022 at 15:51:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Print shows Justice holding a large sword and carrying a lantern, with a cloth labeled "Justice" over her mouth, searching a cemetery, among tombstones labeled "Formed no opinion died 1660, Formed no opinion 1600, Haven't read papers 1776, [and] No opinion died 1670", for jurors who are uninformed of the assassination of President James A. Garfield; includes an insert showing a man hanging from a gibbet labeled "Verdict of 50,000,000 Illustrated". Physical description: 1 print : chromolithograph.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Printed#Magazine_and_newspaper_illustrations_in_color
Info created by Puck [Jonathan Keppler] - uploaded by PDMagazineCoverUploading [cropped; original uploaded by Fæ in 2014] - nominated by PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info Cropped slightly to eliminate the image background.
Support -- Well-preserved magazine cover in color about a noteworthy historical event. PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I read "A Midsummer Night's Dream" recently so it's a funny coincidence that this image should be nominated and seen by me. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll be seeing it more! The quotation was a standard part of the Puck letterhead and I plan I cropping & nominating a lot more of their covers for featured picture status. Most of the Judge covers are juuuuuuust low-quality enough to miss FP status, but it looks like there's a bunch of unnoticed gems in the Puck category. PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COM:VIC is always a possibility for the no-FP ones (and the FP ones). Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 06:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Printed#Magazine_and_newspaper_illustrations_in_color

File:William Henry Jackson - Castle of Chapultepec, from the west, Mexico, between 1880 and 1897.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2022 at 20:05:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Exteriors#Towns
Info created by William Henry Jackson - restored, uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I understand it's an old photo, but the quality is rather poor at pixel level. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Urban Versis 32: I will say, in its defense, that it's 62 megapixels, which is quite big. I think it's quite sharp at more typical FP sizes. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm fine with the quality, and the restoration job is fantastic as always. But we shouldn't ignore the photographic aspects just because it's an old photo by a famous photographer. The composition is uninspiring with too much empty water and sky. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I would support a crop. Yann (talk) 10:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Altering the format of a photograph taken by a famous photographer is like removing the hands of the Mona Lisa because one doesn't like them or because one considers Da Vinci's composition unsatisfactory. I don't know why there's so much sky and water in this picture, but probably the tastes at this period were different. Altering the composition of a famous photo is counter-encyclopedic in my view.

Personally I don't find the image interesting. Dull light and too many trees obstructing. However, if supporters' votes democratically approve the nomination, I think the only acceptable version is this one, original from the Library of Congress's Prints and Photographs division, and not an arbitrary alternative. -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@King of Hearts, Yann, and Basile Morin: I can give some feedback: First of all, this is a negative, and, as such, may not represent the intended final crop, though I find it a bit more likely to be in this case because standard aspect ratios, the border around it with the clear label, and the need to fit the structure onto them: The Detroit Publishing Company did a lot of postcards, and those are very strict aspect ratios. That is, however, a publishing restraint of the time, not an unconstrained artistic choice. Secondly, the Detroit Publishing Company were very big into photochroms - colourised photographs - and that would make the trees a lot more impressive, and any dull lighting could be fixed in the process. Thirdly, the geography of the area seems to make trees a necessity unless aerial photography is used. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unless there is some serious historical importance to this image (by which I mean the image itself, not its subject). Daniel Case (talk) 04:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. This looks to be the only complete picture of the castle on Commons, so a good VI, but I'm not impressed with the light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chandra River from Rohtang Himachal Jul19.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2022 at 22:24:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#India
Info The Chandra river flowing through the high Himalaya region of Lahaul, as seen from the Rohtang pass; created and uploaded by Tagooty - nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 22:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 22:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting view but unattractive light. The sky seems washed out -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixable? UnpetitproleX (Talk) 17:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, due to the direction of the rays -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Basile. Yann (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile --Milseburg (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile, and frankly even reducing the highlights may not make up for the overbusyness of the sky. Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination UnpetitproleX (Talk) 20:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heinrich Tiidermann - Rahvariides neiu Tallinna lähedalt.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2022 at 21:33:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Heinrich Tiidermann (1863–1904) - uploaded & nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info There is also a virtual exhibition of Tiidermann's work in the Estonian Wikipedia.
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs restoration. Too much damage for FP this way. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question The black borders are very distracting, could they be cut? Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So tagged. Daniel Case (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. It needs restoration for it to be FP-worthy. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Kruusamägi (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Angel glacier and a rock rabbit enjoying the view. (50891599841).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2022 at 09:17:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Alberta
Info Photomontage, created by Bernd Thaller - uploaded & nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info For those, who doesn't read file description, this is a photomontage. --Ivar (talk) 10:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but for my personal taste this looks too artificial --Kritzolina (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just for clarification - I was well aware this was a photomontage and while it is done well technically, the result still looks too artificial to me, even before reading this was a photomontage my first thought was: this animal does not belong there. --Kritzolina (talk) 08:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my support per others. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my support -- Wolf im Wald 14:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tomer T, You should alert voters to the fact that this is a photomontage. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's already obvious from the discussion. Tomer T (talk) 11:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But someone can vote without reading the discussion. If I like a photo, I don't care what others have said. You do need to flag it in the info section of the nom. It would be better to change the file name. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per above, --Poco a poco (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charlesjsharp. -- Wolf im Wald 18:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 06:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not sure why you withdrew it, I was about to support for what it is : a good example of photoshop montage (and despite some shortcomings). No one is deceiving anyone here, and a reviewer feels let down, it's only his fault for not reading the description. Benh (talk) 07:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, giving this another chance, and unwithdrawing. Tomer T (talk) 11:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’m with Benh here. Most Wikimedians (including myself) have a strong devotion on documentary and ‘authentic’ photography; but photomontages are everywhere today (one could even argue that the way smartphones process photos today, taking several shots and rendering a single one from them without any manual control, improving many details by ‘AI’, always results in a kind of uncontrolled photomontage). Therefore even if we see the main focus of Commons in documentary and educative media, we still need also photomontages and need a discourse about them; and having a discourse about photomotages would mean for Commons that we to sort photomontages in special categories (in addition to the topical categories), that we introduce QI and FP (and maybe VI?) criteria for photomontages and apply them. When we stop to decline photomotages per se and instead start to distinguish between (technically) better and worse photomotages, between helpful and malicious photomotages, between photomotages made for political vs. educative vs. … reasons or just for fun, then we will help to enlighten people about the various forms and intentions of photomotages, how to recognize them etc.
What does this mean concretely? Let’s discuss a photo like this one as a photomontage and vote on it on the base of questions like: (i) whether the montage is technically done well or not; (ii) whether the montage was successful or not, i.e. whether it creates some additional wow/fun/eureka effect or not; (iii) whether we can agree that the montage has a ‘good’, i.e. educative or entertaining effect, or does mislead in a dishonest intention. And if we would get the necessary majority of support votes, let’s put the picture into a new gallery page, i.e. not into Places/Natural/Canada, but on a new ‘Photomontages’ gallery page, to make clear that we feature the picture not in spite of it being a photomontage, but exactly as a photomontage.
Sorry for the rant ;–). We can continue this on the talk page, if you want. (But I have already said what I wanted to say, so I will shut up.) --Aristeas (talk) 08:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's a pretty good, dramatic and fun photo montage. The rabbit is so well blended, even its "ambient light" seems to be from the surrounding. There's even a pretty good cast shadow. Only caveats are some edges (moustache and herbs in the mouth) are noticeable, but no deal breaker in my view. - Benh (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas and Benh. Many thanks for Aristeas whose clear and far-sighted statement makes further explanations superfluous, imo. -- Radomianin (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no vegetation nearby that rabbit has in mouth. --Ivar (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tinker pictures that way does not fascinate me at all, sorry. I had a similar composition featured 3 years ago, fortunately not a fake. -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Ermell (talk) 06:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The fact that the pika is eating vegetation nowhere in evidence in the picture makes this too hard to believe for it to be a good mashup. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Thank you for giving the picture another chance! Well, evaluating this photomontage roughly according to the ideas stated above leads me to the following result: The original photo of the Angel glacier is good, impressive and more or less on FP level. The photomontage was done well (see Benh’s statement); I see no dishonest intention, but it’s a fun photo montage and one could even say it has got some educational value (it’s an instructive example and would fit nicely into a schoolbook ;–). But personally I think the photomontage does not add much value to the original photo – it’s nice, but not great. Therefore my result is weak support. --Aristeas (talk) 06:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others Ryan Hodnett (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan, and also because the lighting just doesn't work for such a splendid scene. Daniel Case (talk) 03:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find this picture beautiful in a number of ways but the central concept is something of a gimmick to me. Cmao20 (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 11 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arun Yogiraj Statues Left View Mysore Railway Station Apr22 A7C 01914.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2022 at 08:51:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Sculptures_outdoors
Info "Life is a Journey": Bronze statues of travelers by Arun Yogiraj, Mysore Junction Railway Station, Karnataka, India. Created by Tagooty - uploaded by Tagooty - nominated by Tagooty -- Tagooty (talk) 08:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Eye-catching poses of travelers, especially the photographer aiming at me. -- Tagooty (talk) 08:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice motif and good idea but there are some issues, in descending order: 1. Verticals leaning out. Very prominent with the columns, and would have been easy to avoid here. Can’t be fixed though because of → 2. Too tight crop on the right side, the outstretched arm needs more lead room. 3. Exposure is a bit on the bright side. A very bit. 4. The distracting display in the left background spoils the composition IMHO. --Kreuz schnabel 10:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuzschnabel — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Kreuzschnabel and Urban Versis 32: Thanks for the comments. I've reworked the image to fix all 4 issues. Please review the new version. --Tagooty (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I like it, but I apologize for pushing you a little from the other side: Why is it OK to remove the green display? That's a normal part of a scene at a railway station. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Ikan Kekek: Good point ... I've restored the green display in the latest version. --Tagooty (talk) 03:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the new changes. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support With composition, light etc., this photo makes the sculptures appear true-to-life, I think this is an important achievement. --Aristeas (talk) 07:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Funny photographer photographed, but cluttered background. Very tight crop at the lower left corner. Maybe not the best angle because the child at the right is hidden -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cluttered background, per Basile and Kreuzschnabel. Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Avoriaz (8).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2022 at 12:36:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#France
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ I really like the scenery! Still, I think the picture could benefit from being cropped on the right. There are also technical problems. Unfortunately, some single images of the stitching are blurred, so that the sharpness is very different at various places in the picture. One example for this can be seen on the left side of the town where the trees are in front of the buildings. -- Wolf im Wald 14:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Changed my vote because I clearly prefer the alt version. -- Wolf im Wald 12:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interesting scene but unbeautiful buildings, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Tourbasol7. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would also crop it by a third on the right (where the trees start). Are the buildings made out of wood? I can't tell, but the whole town certainly looks unusual --Lupe (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting subject that captured my attention the moment I saw it. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the most famous ski resort in France. Also the place of the Avoriaz International Fantastic Film Festival (in French, surprisingly doesn't have an article in English). Yann (talk) 07:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Now that I've seen Wolf im Wald's note on the unsharp area, I can't unsee it, and I think that makes this not an FP, without prejudice to any other argument. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Green cast -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cropped version[edit]

Info @Der Wolf im Wald: @Ikan Kekek: @Urban Versis 32: @Lupe: @Aristeas: @Frank Schulenburg: ; cropped version. Tournasol7 (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Big improvement, IMO, and much more compelling composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Also OK. Yann (talk) 07:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. And when we classify this as a ‘cityscape’ photo, the cropped version fits better. --Aristeas (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This version is more pleasing to the viewer, imo. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer this one, the cropped area seems featureless to me. -- IamMM (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 12:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I prefer this version but there is the same issue regarding the sharpness. I marked a blurry spot in the image notes. -- Wolf im Wald 12:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 19:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose FPs should not have such craft flaws as Wolf points out.--Ermell (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neither motive nor implementation are outstanding enough. --Milseburg (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this suffers from green cast. Weird colours - Benh (talk) 08:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low contrast, slightly off WB per Benh, and technical flaws. Daniel Case (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Now that I've seen Wolf im Wald's note on the unsharp area, I can't unsee it, and I think that makes this not an FP, without prejudice to any other argument. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shadows (33902546238).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2022 at 08:41:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors#Germany
Info created by a.canvas.of.light - uploaded by Andrew J.Kurbiko - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little grainy, but quite a nice artistic photo. I would be happy to see a print of this photo on the wall of an art gallery, so I think it merits a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ditto. --Aristeas (talk) 07:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Apparently this picture named "shadows" highlights a huge level of contrast, but the silhouettes are not incredible to me. The stairs are almost black and the dark parts indistinct -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile Morin. --Tagooty (talk) 08:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not only per Basile, but despite the grayscale there's still a distressing amount of noise. Also, the pleasing effect of the staircase and wall lines is thrown off by the off-center ceiling and skylight ... I want to reach in and straighten it out. Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 20:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opponents. -- Karelj (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Ikan, in spite of the noise. Cmao20 (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Town hall of Aosta (3).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2022 at 12:32:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Italy
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 12:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 12:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's quite a beautiful town hall. ~~I haven't decided whether I consider this special enough among the photos we've been featuring to support yet, but~~ I did add a thumbnail of it to the Wikivoyage article about Aosta. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well-done blue hour shot with beautiful light and colours. --Aristeas (talk) 08:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good enough motif and restful composition, so I think it merits a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The shadows are a bit distracting but still ok I think.--Ermell (talk) 06:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 04:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The is a nicely lit subdued shot for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not see here anything special for FP nomination. Just good quality image of not exceptional older building. -- Karelj (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I like the symmetry here, but I think a slight crop at the bottom is necessary to get rid of whatever object is poking into the frame there. Daniel Case (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful building photographed under perfect light Cmao20 (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gilbweiderich (Lysimachia punctata) Blüte Focus stacked-20220607-RM-163906.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2022 at 19:41:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Primulaceae
Info Single flower of a loosestrife (Lysimachia punctata). Focus stack of 24 frames Al by me -- Ermell (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Crisp photo of an interesting subject. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gorgeous! How come the background is so dark? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Info The flower is in full sunlight, the background in shade. I can only take pictures like this indoors because it is almost always too windy outside and stacking doesn't work well. --Ermell (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support SVeach94 (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's high on quality, in focus and the subject is centered, it's a Support from me! Mugtheboss (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not possible to vote at this point. --A.Savin 03:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 04:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Light and high level of detail at full resolution -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful. --Aristeas (talk) 06:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Personal footnote: Thank you, Ermell, for this photo! We will be moving to a new flat in the autumn and taking a look at the (small) garden of it I have discovered this flower. I wanted to search for the ID, but thanks to your photo I can say immediately that it must be a Lysimachia punctata. In how many ways FP discussions can be helpful … ;–) --Aristeas (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nice idea. However, I would like to point out that the plant tends to spread a lot.--Ermell (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ivar (talk) 07:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support !! -- Radomianin (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please remove the dark halo around the left part of the blossom (see image note). I will be happy to support afterwards. :-) -- Wolf im Wald 00:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Info If I look closely, I can see the dark area. But I feel that this hardly disturbs the overall impression. A change would not significantly improve the image. Thank you for the review anyaway. --Ermell (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pez ángel de barra amarilla (Pomacanthus maculosus), parque nacional Ras Muhammad, Egipto, 2022-03-26, DD 138.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2022 at 14:00:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Order_:_Perciformes_(Perch-like_Fishes)
Info Yellowbar angelfish (Pomacanthus maculosus), Ras Muhammad National Park, Red Sea, Egypt. This marine angelfish is distributed throughout the Persian Gulf, the northwestern Indian Ocean, and the Red Sea south to 19°S. In 2009 it was recorded off the coast of Lebanon in the eastern Mediterranean, probably as a result of Lessepsian migration from the Red Sea through the Suez Canal. Pomacanthus maculosus is found at depths of between 4 and 50 metres (13 and 164 ft). It is a solitary species that lives in sheltered areas, often where there is a mixture of coral and silt. Their diet is dominated by sea sponges and tunicates, although other invertebrates will be eaten opportunistically. The females attain sexual maturity when the reach around 5.5 years of age and a total length of 21.6 centimetres (8.5 in). The maximum longevity is thought to be 36 years old. They are protogynous hermaphrodites and the older females can change sex to become males when there is a shortage of males. The larvae are planktonic. The yellowbar angelfish is occasionally collected for the aquarium trade and in some parts of the Persian Gulf it has been recorded in fish markets. Note: if it becomes FP it would be the first FP of the genus Pomacanthus and the second of the family Pomacanthidae (being the another one this recent FP). c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! In addition, this fish has a funny face. Yann (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann :) Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 06:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 07:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 08:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 07:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Fish#Order_:_Perciformes_(Perch-like_Fishes)

File:Phalacrocorax carbo, Egretta garzetta and Mareca strepera in Taudha Lake.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2022 at 17:00:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Nepal
Info created and uploaded by Prasan Shrestha - nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 17:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 17:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very cool action photo. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very atmospheric --Kritzolina (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice fog (or mist). These silhouettes tell a story -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile Morin and Kritzolina -- IamMM (talk) 05:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Kritzolina and Basile. --Aristeas (talk) 06:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 07:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Kritzolina. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per other supporters. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 13:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 07:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 09:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW! Could be POTY finalist... -- Wolf im Wald 00:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful indeed Cmao20 (talk) 01:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Istanbul asv2021-11 img68 Aynalıkavak Pavilion.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2022 at 22:36:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Windows
Info Window detail of the Aynalıkavak Pavilion, Hasköy / Istanbul, all by me --A.Savin 22:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 22:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support You really have to ask yourself where painting ends and the real window begins. --Aristeas (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per others but it's a little bright. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 12:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A very good quality image, but I don't find it exceptional. --Tagooty (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice... --SHB2000 (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tagooty. -- Karelj (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A little noisy and could be more in focus, but still gets over the line for me. Daniel Case (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tagooty. --GRDN711 (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The door looks noisy. DoF issue? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Tagooty -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tagooty. --El Grafo (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Striped albatross (Appias olferna olferna) female underside with shield bug.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2022 at 09:01:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Pieridae (Whites and Sulphurs)
Info One FP of this genus. Focus stack of four images. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Two insects for the price of one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 04:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the way the curves of the leaves complement those on the butterfly's wings. Daniel Case (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Pieridae (Whites and Sulphurs)

Diprion similis larva, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2022 at 06:59:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Side view
Top view

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera#Family_:_Diprionidae_(Conifer_sawflies)
Info Larva body length 29 mm. All by Ivar (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think they should be to scale. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and roughly they are, full reso at same body length. --Ivar (talk) 09:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. The way they are presented at FPC makes them look different sizes. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Beautiful and impressive. (At the first glance it may not seem as extremely sharp as some recent FPs of insects, but considering the small size of the larva and that Ivar has not applied strong sharpening etc. in post the quality is IHMO very very good.) --Aristeas (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. The more impressive picture on the left, in particular, is quite sharp at 60%, which is still quite big. I'd suggest cropping the top view just a little more on the left, so that the things coming from the stems are fully instead of partially cropped, and it would be fine to make an equivalent crop on the right side so as not to disturb the ratio of distances between the larva and the sides of the picture frame. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment tried the top view crop, but the result is imo not convincing (it gets too narrow). --Ivar (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I support either way. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- IamMM (talk) 04:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technically well done, and educative -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera#Family_:_Diprionidae_(Conifer_sawflies)

File:SNCF B 81500 Embrun - Montdauphin-Guillestre.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2022 at 18:59:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France#Hautes-Alpes
Info created & uploaded by David Gubler – nominated by Ivar (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Ivar (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The train (with six engines?) is small but it's an attractive scene. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of those photos with which I want to decorate a wall in my bedroom. Amazing view. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice view where the train is of course a main element, giving life to the landscape -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful landscape image. Have tried to add some categories for the landscape; further improvements are very welcome ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 07:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 07:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 07:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking composition and colours. --Tagooty (talk) 07:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry to dissent. The train is only so big here, and the landscape itself is not extraordinary, with a very uniform light (which I usually forgive because of the otherwise excellent timing) and I think I could be taken at a better time of the year. I'd like either more snow or more leaves, but not patches of snow and bare trees. - Benh (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very attractive! --SHB2000 (talk)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much unsharpness. And you don't see the train until you look closely or at full size. Daniel Case (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, in part per Daniel and Benh. Beautiful scene but not as sharp as usual and the composition is fine but not exceptional to me. The size of the train relative to the picture frame doesn't matter to me, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Good, but not outstanding for me. --El Grafo (talk) 07:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 01:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:New Road Zanskar Sumdo Lahaul Oct20 D72 18201.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2022 at 11:18:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other
Info created and uploaded by Timothy Gonsalves - nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 11:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 11:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This scene could be an FP, but in this one the light is just too harsh. Daniel Case (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a bad composition indeed, but the harsh light mentioned by Daniel spoils it, plus some overexposure leading to washed-out and blueish colours. This might be saved in postprocessing. After five minutes with the JPG in GIMP, I came up with this here (downscaled to ⅓ without losing much detail), but that work should be done from the raw file of course. Furthermore, there’s sharpness. The focus is on the very foreground, on the bottom edge (why?) which is clearly not a winning point, and defocused scenery cannot be sharpened by software. No, never. --Kreuz schnabel 17:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is someone trying to offer the other version as an alternate? I would vote for it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don’t, at least not yet :) my suggestion is meant to be an example to outline what I meant by overexposure and washed-out colours. It has been done from the JPG as 2nd generation (so artifacts are building up) instead of the raw file, and considerably downscaled (to show the poor detail in the nomination – 24 mpix downscaled into 2⅔ mpix with no loss to speak of). If the raw file is still with us, I’d like to have a try on it, but it won’t help the sharpness issue. I would oppose as well I’m afraid. --Kreuz schnabel 19:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Perhaps @Tagooty: can help, since they took this picture. I do like the improved version, but the resolution is way too reduced (which, I understand, is because it’s only meant to demonstrate the desired improvements). UnpetitproleX (Talk) 20:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Kreuzschnabel, Daniel Case, Ikan Kekek, and UnpetitproleX: Please review the improved version, with reduced exposure and other improvements. In this high altitude (12,000') semi-desert the mid-day light is naturally harsh. I find the scene is fairly sharp from the foreground to the distant ridgeline. --Tagooty (talk) 01:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please make sure there's only one image we can see; otherwise, I don't know what I'm supposed to judge. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tagooty: It is a little better, in that I don't reflexively squint when I look at it. But Kreuzchnabel did this by downsampling heavily, and that is generally met with disapproval here, as his comment indicates. I am not changing my !vote. Daniel Case (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Daniel Case and Ikan Kekek: Sorry for the confusion. I had uploaded a new version of the original image. To avoid confusion, I've modified Kreuzchnabel's comment to not display his image (his link is retained). Please click on the original image for the new version. --Tagooty (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tagooty (talk) 01:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Tagooty: In order to avoid confusion (we’re having votings on different images mixed up now), and to not meddle with others’ comments (which is not considered good practice here), it would be much wiser to withdraw this nomination and place a new one for the reworked image. And it would be still a bit wiser to upload the reworked image under a new name so the nomination subpages archived refer to their respective image versions in question. --Kreuz schnabel 07:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kreuzschnabel: My apologies for the modification to your comment. --Tagooty (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I’ll withdraw and renominate. There seems to be too much confusion. Though one thing someone more experienced should clarify to me: will the nomination be counted as a renomination (ie do I need to put a /2 in the nomination) and if so do I need to wait till this nomination is moved to the archives? UnpetitproleX (Talk) 14:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Info @UnpetitproleX: Once you add the withdraw template, the nomination will soon be closed and removed from the FPC page. After closure, renomination can be done with a /2 so the original nomination and its discussion is not disturbed. The reason for the renomination should be mentioned. --Tagooty (talk) 01:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 06:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 06:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elephant hawkmoth (Deilephila elpenor) male.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2022 at 08:34:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Sphingidae (Hawk Moths)
Info The UK's most colourful large moth. Focus stack of 26 images. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support When I saw this on QIC, I expected to see this excellent portrait here. Is its eye closed? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and no. Moths don't have eyelids. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Consistent focus stacking, providing a high level of detail. Attractive colors. Still the light is a bit harsh, and the shadow unappealing -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 04:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak oppose~~ Beautiful subject, lovely colors, excellent level of detail and I don't really mind the shadows. But a few more frames would have been necessary to get the whole animal sharp: The edge of the front wing is very soft. It does seem to merge in with the background, which really messes with my depth perception. The repetitive wavy patterns in the background are weird too. Surely that must be an artifact of the stacking process - not necessarily the dark-bright-dark |||||-like pattern, but at least the vvvvv-like component on top of that? I'd be more lenient with a smaller subject, as I know optics can become quite tricky in the microscopic range, but judging this against other candidates in the 1:1-ish range, I'm tending towards opposing. Still on the edge, though, because it does have a lot of wow - might reconsider later ... --El Grafo (talk) 08:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually El Grafo the background is a comfy wicker chair! I had no time to move it out of the way as the moth moved. I had the camera's focus-bracketing image count set at 40. With a live animal in the open air, even that's a large number. I normally use 15 or 20. Would have needed around 70 to get nearest wing in focus, but only if I could have managed to get the camera to focus on the wing leading edge. For better or worse, I chose to focus on the front leg. Camera was on a monopod, braced against a wooden chair. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, thanks, that explains the pattern. Who would have thought! And if there's any part on that animal that can get away with being unsharp, it's exactly that wing. Oppose struck. I'll think about a support, but I'm not sure I can get over those waves. Knowing what they are helps, but I still find them distracting. --El Grafo (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very impressive. (IMHO the legs are a bit overexposed and oversharpened, but this does not make a difference because of the overall quality and effect.) --Aristeas (talk) 09:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 11:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile and Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice work and interesting subject, but the noisy background is a little bit distractiong IMO. -- Wolf im Wald 00:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I understand the constraints on taking the image, but that blurry foreground is still a little distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Basile, Daniel and Aristeas Poco a poco (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Petite Venise depuis le pont de la rue de Turenne (Colmar) (19).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2022 at 06:48:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#France
Info created by Gzen92 - uploaded by Gzen92 - nominated by Gzen92 -- Gzen92 ^[discuter] 06:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gzen92 ^[discuter] 06:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like everything about the image except for the leaves and other things in the water, but that can't really be helped. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What I don’t like in the first place is the overexposed cut-off building to the right. Then, it’s the framing. Obviously the photographer was in for the reflection but that don’t really work here, it’s a bit too cluttered overall, and so the portrait orientation looks odd. I’d much prefer a square crop as suggested on the nomination page, and with the camera shifted a bit to the left, the building on the right could be entirely outside the frame. That would give a very much clearer composition. As it is, it’s a bit arbitrary with the cut-off houses on both sides. Besides, it would eliminate "the leaves and other things in the water". --Kreuz schnabel 20:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The alternative composition suggested by Kreuz would be excellent and I would suggest (if you, Gzen92, can visit beautiful Colmar again) to try it. But IMHO this does not mean that the composition of the present photo is bad; it is a nice vanishing-point view; I would just crop a little (!) bit at the top and bottom. However the overexposed façades are IMHO a problem. Most digital cameras which I know tend to overexpose the highlights in such a situation (the manufacturers seem to adhere to some outdated ideas about “getting the midtones right”); often it is necessary to underexpose such a scene a bit (maybe by 2/3 steps) in order to preserve the highlights, and then to make the photo brighter again (preserving the highlights) in post-processing. Of course this approach can be difficult with JPEG images, it works better when you take photos in the raw image format. Another problem is the white balance; this could be improved a bit in post, too, especially when working with a raw image file, but it may be even better to take such photos in another season – midday light in June makes such photos often a bit unappealing, the sun is just too high (which results in overexposed bright areas and black shadows) and the light too cold. No offence, just some remarks which I hope to be helpful. --Aristeas (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think I'd support the crop ... as it is I find the debris floating in the water at the foreground to be somewhat off-putting, and the crop gets rid of most of it. Daniel Case (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Thoughtful composition but doesn't really work for me. It feels tense in the middle and nothing much is happening in the sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful photo but the light feels a little pale and washed-out for me, and I'm not 100% convinced by the composition per Ikan Cmao20 (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coral (Astreopora myriophthalma), parque nacional Ras Muhammad, Egipto, 2022-03-28, DD 105.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2022 at 13:31:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class_:_Anthozoa
Info Stony coral (Astreopora myriophthalma), Red Sea, Ras Muhammad National Park, Egypt. If successful it would be the first FP of the family Merulinidae. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice image. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral not a perfect DOF this time, closest parts are oof. --Ivar (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp and detailed enough for me to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good but far from outstanding in my view. Same criticism as my other reviews on similar subjects : simple composition with centered subject. Also like a few of your underwater pics I have reviewe, focus is off and this leads me to think your lens suffers from a backfocus issue. I don't think you can dive, photograph all corals you can and submit them all here. You ought to make some filtering beforehand on your side. - Benh (talk) 08:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Benh, Aristeas To my defense I can say that after having dived in the Red Sea 13 times I've only seen this coral once. Furthermore I find the composition not bad at all. Image the coral reefs like a kind of part lot with tons of cars closed to each other, this coral is standalone and I used a side lighting to show its nice texture. --Poco a poco (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support What are you using to take these high quality underwater shots? --SHB2000 (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SHB2000 you can look up the camera an lens in the EXIF data, otherwise I use this case and lighting (13000 lumen). Poco a poco (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- IamMM (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Not as perfect as some of your other new underwater shots, but still impressive. --Aristeas (talk) 09:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The focus here is a little too far back. Not quite as good as the others.--Ermell (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals#Class_:_Anthozoa

File:Palazzo Barberini May 2022-2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2022 at 15:20:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Italy
Info View through a window from the interior of Palazzo Barberini, Rome. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ok but not great, in my view. The silhouette of the structure is a geometric pattern that is very common in all big buildings of Europe. So what's through the window? Mainly a flat gradient of sky, and at the bottom an ordinary landscape. I miss the wow factor here -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing excptional on this window image for the FP nominatiom, IHMO. -- Karelj (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to agree with the others, especially in regard to the sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. The view is not spectacular enough to offset the frame. Daniel Case (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Салтыковский лесопарк 57.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2022 at 19:27:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Plants/Asterales
Info created by Ulaisaeva - uploaded by Ulaisaeva - nominated by Ulaisaeva -- Ulaisaeva (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ulaisaeva (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The depth of field is too shallow in my view, compared to the other pictures of flowers we usually promote. Metadata missing. The adding of a description in English would be good. And in all languages, the name of the flower clearly mentioned. The file name is very broad -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing excptional on this flowers image for the FP nominatiom, IHMO. -- Karelj (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Look at the fantastic focus-stacked flowers we've been featuring lately. That's part of your competition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Composition isn't bad but, as Ikan notes, we have a pretty high bar for flower photos. And, this one has that slight halo around the petals. Daniel Case (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A pretty photo and a good QI but per above I don't think it is outstanding enough for FP in this competitive category Cmao20 (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brahminy kite (Haliastur indus), Kuakata Eco-Park.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2022 at 01:19:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes
Info created by Md shahanshah bappy - uploaded by Md shahanshah bappy - nominated by আফতাবুজ্জামান -- আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Really great light. It's a shame the wing does not fit into the frame -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. Could be sharper, too, for FP - even birds in flight that we've been featuring recently are sharper than this. Lovely colors, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really like the eagle and the light, but there are compression artefacts, especially in the bokeh. Also, I fully agree with Ikan Kekek and Basile Morin. -- Wolf im Wald 23:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop would be enough reason to oppose, plus quality issues. Though it really is a nice shot, it’s by no means up to our standards in birds. Please have a look at some recently featured ones in comparison. --Kreuz schnabel 17:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per crop. Daniel Case (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, great capture but the crop is too poor for FP Cmao20 (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:বাংলাদেশের অপরূপ রূপ.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2022 at 15:21:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Bangladesh
Info created and uploaded by Sultan Ahmed Niloy - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 17:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Beautiful composition with color noise that feels like grain to me. What accounts for the unusual brown/green color in the sky? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's certainly something going on in the atmosphere. Warm early morning light hitting misty air could explain the orange/brownish component. Depending on geography, it could also be smog or a sand storm. If the camera is expecting something else and tries to compensate (EXIF says white balance was set to auto), I suppose that might lead to the slight green-ish tint? --El Grafo (talk) 09:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of a sandstorm. It would be great to hear from the photographer. It's unfortunate that he hasn't been here since November, 2020. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ezarateesteban 23:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The power cables are unfortunate. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose. I don't mind the power lines, and I love the mood, but the graininess and color noise are incompatible with FP status. Daniel Case (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Daniel Case Cmao20 (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Oppose per my positive comments above but the color noise. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for comments. -- IamMM (talk) 07:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alcea rosea 2022 G1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2022 at 18:53:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Malvaceae
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! --Yann (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not a fan of 'studio' black backgrounds, but this is extraordinarily well executed. Amazing quality considering the level of camera used. If this is a focus stack, please let us know the processing software George. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's not a focus stack, just one f/11 shot, the best in the series. The black background is the night sky. A flash with a white diffuser was used. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. So much better than some of our focus-stacked flower nominations. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Lotje (talk) 11:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 20:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blooming stages -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Basilique Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupré, Quebéc, Canada 07.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2022 at 19:07:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Religion#Christianity
Info created by Marcus Dubois - uploaded by Wilfredor - nominated by Wilfredor -- Wilfredor (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry, but I think we expect more sharpness from this kind of interior picture at FPC, nowadays. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This could be considerably improved by adding a sharpening filter with Topaz, however, I don't usually add any denoise or sharpening filters because it is generally a destructive process on the image. --Wilfredor (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful motif outweighs slightly low sharpness Cmao20 (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fábio Maldonado 2022.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2022 at 21:42:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait
Info The athlete was aware that he was being photographed for Wikipedia) / created by JukoFF - uploaded by JukoFF - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support SVeach94 (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality, sorry. While it’s funny you cannot unsee it’s a phonecam shot, with its heavy noise reduction and loss of detail. Nothing is really sharp, the face is in focus but motion-blurred. --Kreuz schnabel 07:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But probably theoretically, in good light, a photo from a phone can be a "Featured picture", don't you think? JukoFF (talk) 11:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure that’s possible, yet I think this one isn’t. --Kreuz schnabel 13:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Heterogeneous background at the upper right corner. Is it the same guy on the t-shirt? Category:Recursion could be used, and the description mention it (see self-reference on Wikipedia). -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Category added. Thanks for the tip! JukoFF (talk) 11:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per others above. Yann (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On a positive note, the phone camera does have one thing speaking for it. The wide angle lens exaggerates the size of the close fist in relation to the further away head. Normally you wouldn't want that in a portrait, but it makes a lot of sense here. --El Grafo (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this isn't that far from being an FP and is worth nominating at QIC. Good portrait, but not quite sharp and detailed enough. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gildir (talk) 08:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Children learning to play the local drum in northern Region of Ghana 03.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2022 at 20:00:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Musicians and singers performing
Info created and uploaded by Sir Amugi, nominated by Yann (talk)
Question Or the category should be Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Children?
Support -- Yann (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not seeing a personality rights template. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have added {{Personality rights}}. --Aristeas (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I’m not seeing (as the title suggests) "children learning to play the drum", I’m seeing one child holding one and others standing in the background unconnected. Well, that might be me, but it’s a bit misleading: a caption should not be necessary for understanding an image, putting it into context. Pushing this issue aside, next thing I see a cluttered and busy background, and the crop with the cut-off hand (and head, in the background) is really a bit unfortunate. Zooming in, the focus appears to be on the drum’s near edge, the face laughing so happily is considerably unsharp. Adding the blueish colours to that, while it’s certainly a nice and moodful image, I do not see one of our very very best ones here. --Kreuz schnabel 22:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to illustrate my point about white balance, this is what I would call normal colours. --Kreuz schnabel 06:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kreuzschnabel: Thanks for color correction. FWIW this was not mentioned in QI review, but I agree that your version is better. I will overload to this one if you and the author agree. Otherwise I fully agree with Wilfredor below. There was a mention of lack of diversity on FPC talk page. Here we see the concrete application of the problem. We have very few FP of children compared to bugs/flowers/buildings, so we should accept some minor issues (cropped hand, etc.). This is not a studio shot, so we can't compare the technical issues with images of bugs or flowers. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My version (meant for demonstration only) has been done from the JPG in question trying to bend the colours back, so quality loss started to pile up already. Would be much better if the author could rework their original, or provide a raw file (even better). On the other point, see my comment on Wilfredor below. It’s true that FP somehow lacks pictures of this kind but that’s not a reason to feature pictures that don’t meet our standards otherwise. Any "quality bonus" for African images, just in order to get more of them featured, could even be considered discriminatory, in terms of "they can’t do better, so let’s accept that". --Kreuz schnabel 09:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And, as always: Please do not switch the image during voting period. Better withdraw this one and place another nomination for the improved version, to keep votings sorted. --Kreuz schnabel 09:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Technically imperfect, but we have very few images on this subject. I'm already tired of seeing photos of outstanding buildings and giving less importance to places where there are no developed western things or where there is no means of buying super cameras to make perfect images. --Wilfredor (talk) 23:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please reconsider. While I fully agree we have too few nominations of this kind, the only way of helping this is taking, uploading and nominating excellent ones. Maybe we do need more skilled Commons photographers in Ghana. However, this should never ever be a reason to feature an image with serious issues just for completeness, and this one certainly has serious issues, not just minor flaws. FP is about excellent pictures, it’s not about equilibrium. --Kreuz schnabel 06:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having been twice to Ghana I sympathise with Wilfredo's comments, but the camera is good quality. However, 1/160 sec was not fast enough to ensure that the child's face is in focus (or the autofocus needs recalibation). The child's hand has also been cropped. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, that's a charming smile and a valuable contribution, but in the end it has too many technical issues. In addition to what was already mentioned, the whole picture feels slightly underexposed. At the same time, large patches of highlights in the background are burned out in an unattractive way. The spot to the bottom right of the yellow shirt has been handled reasonably well, but the upper left corner has some major problems that I cannot unsee: looks like burned out highlights were first darkened to a medium grey and then sharpened, leaving a bright halo around them. There's also some motion blur on the drum stick - just enough to make it look unsharp but not enough to feel like the result of a drum stroke. --El Grafo (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose So I think the others are right: distracting background and unfortunate crop of her hand. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination This is not going to succeed. Yann (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Common garden lizard (Calotes versicolor) young male Phi Phi.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2022 at 18:20:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family : Agamidae (Dragon Lizards)
Info This is the same species as the 'lizard up a pole' nomination but with an undamaged tail. This young male is hunting. He climbs up a flowering bush and waits for a butterfly or other insect to land nearby. He remains still and well camouflaged and that permits focus-bracketing. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing excptional on this flower image for the FP nominatiom, IHMO. -- Karelj (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice lizard but I find the composition too cluttered, with too much greenery competing with the lizard. Karelj, did you mean to put those comments in another nomination? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Ikan. While this is good lighting and excellent quality, it’s just too cluttered, you literally have to find the main subject first. --Kreuz schnabel 21:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's the whole point!. Army Officer: "I didn't see you at camouflage training this morning, Smithers." Private soldier: "Thank you, Sir." Interesting that camouflage is appreciated in underwater FP nominations, but not on land. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Camouflage can be problematic for underwater compositions, too. I supported a photo of a sole that showed its excellent camouflage but also showed the fish quite clearly because of its patterns and 3-dimensionality. I voted against or didn't vote for other nominations in which the underwater creature was too well camouflaged for the composition (such as when it had sand all over itself and you could see very little other than its eye). It's all a matter of judgment and sometimes proportion of creature vs. background tending to hide it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose doesn't stand out --Lupe (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Neillia affinis, trosspirea. 23-05-2022 (actm.).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2022 at 15:29:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Rosaceae
Info Flowers of a Neillia affinis. Focus stack of 36 photos.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've marked a few stacking errors. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question In light of these stacking errors is there any way to fix them? Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Correction. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Info I like the red of the flowers and the blur of the back leaf, wonderful work that doesn't need to be re-stacked. All it takes is a detailed retouching to make the photo perfect. I have added a few more notations on the nomination page, or rather supplemented. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Correction and sophistication. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thank you very much for your new editing which made the picture perfect. In addition, the gentle darkening of the background creates a brighter, even more pleasing red of the sepals. -- Radomianin (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful and impressive. (Maybe there are still some minor traces of halos in the background, but the flower itself is very good now.) --Aristeas (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think this can be rescued. Will reconsider if new stack uploaded. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
New version uploaded The traces of halos on the left side I have removed as well as possible and uploaded the photo in agreement with the photographer. Best wishes, -- Radomianin (talk) 06:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Radomianin! Now all traces of halos which I have mentioned above have been fixed. --Aristeas (talk) 09:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading an improved version of my photo!--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment improved, but one error is still bothering me (note name: stacking/cloning error). Part of the petal is cloned out, but should be visible. --Ivar (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thank you very much for your note, Ivar. I have carefully reinserted the blurred petal detail from the first file version at the xy coordinates (3400,870). Best wishes, -- Radomianin (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support All that work was worth it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ I really enjoy your work, Agnes! But I can't support until the stacking errors are fixed. Please see my image note in the right center of the picture. -- Wolf im Wald 00:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thank you very much for pointing out this stacking error, Wolf im Wald. I have removed this halo at the xy coordinates (3000,1400) as well as I could. Best wishes, -- Radomianin (talk) 06:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support some small issues remain, but overall is imo good enough now. --Ivar (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think, the current version is okay enough. -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info Dear reviewers @Agnes Monkelbaan, Charlesjsharp, Urban Versis 32, Aristeas, Ikan Kekek, Iifar, Daniel Case, Der Wolf im Wald, Florstein, and GRDN711: The remaining halo issues, mentioned by Ivar, didn't leave me in peace after my workday was over, so I retouched the file again – for the last time. In at least 15 positions I have carefully removed small and larger halo fragments. I'm sorry for the conscientious pinging. I could have done all the retouching work at once but I just didn't have enough time before. Best wishes :) -- Radomianin (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure what you've done but the background is really blotchy; definitely still an oppose from me. Compare this with George's Alcea Rosea nomination and the quality difference is massive. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your comment. If you compare the first version directly with the last version, you can see the differences. The extensive retouching was mostly limited to the halos (stacking errors) around the petals. The artificial background I did not edit. Best wishes, -- Radomianin (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support The green leaf in the background is a bit unpleasant to me, but overall worthy of FP status. -- IamMM (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 22:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 01:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 06:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per IamMM -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 01:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sunrise in Shkorpilovtsi, Bulgaria 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2022 at 15:11:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Bulgaria
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I love the setting sun, but is very grainy at pixel level. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The leading lines of the pier converge so slowly that they meet at a point outside of the right edge of the frame, giving the composition an unsettling look. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMHO a photo like this one is all about the atmosphere, the soft colours and the shadows, and for me it works well – it’s an impressive melancholic seascape. Regarding the composition I agree that a shorter focal length would have given faster converging lines and therefore a bit more depth and dramatic; but because it’s a quite, melancholic photo I can easily do without dramatic here. --Aristeas (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ezarateesteban 23:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The structure is boring in my view. Not special, nor particularly interesting. Straight architecture. The sky is flat. Not clouds, no texture. The colors are not exceptional. The sand of the foreground, in the darkness, is unappealing. Overall I see a few ordinary silhouettes in an environment with dull gradients of colors -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the subtleties and shapes in this photo more than Basile does, but I don't see a great composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm glad to see a nominee here from Bulgaria, as my son was born there and we don't really have enough FPs from that country, but this is not going to be one. It's not the composition I mind ... it's a great mood and would be vastly improved by cropping out most of the beach. But technically it is far below FP standard—I would not even have promoted it at QIC. At full-res the pier shows signs of oversharpening, and the magenta CA on the sun is inexcusable in an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas Cmao20 (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 01:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thure de Thulstrup - Battle of Shiloh.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2022 at 20:23:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Historical#1850-1900
Info created by Thure de Thulstrup - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. I'll bet you were aiming for a July 4 nomination. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would've been nice, but there was no way I was doing this in a day, even with a head start. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent restauration, as always. --Aristeas (talk) 05:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done restoration work. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 06:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gildir (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 01:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical#1850-1900

File:491 BC - 1902 AD - A Long Time Between Drinks.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2022 at 10:07:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Printed#Magazine_and_newspaper_illustrations_in_color
Info created by Puck [Samuel D. Ehrhart] - uploaded by Cplakidas - nominated by PDMagazineCoverUploading -- PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- No, Joseph Keppler isn't paying me from beyond the grave to preserve his magazine's legacy. There just happens to be a dearth of featured pictures in the "Magazine and newspaper illustrations in color" category and a whole lot of high-quality Puck covers that have gone unnoticed for years! PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Should this be restored Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As per usual with the Puck covers I think it's already FP quality as-is, but I will support delisting & replacing if a restoration is done. PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Happy to support on that basis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Funny and acceptable quality. It will be even better with restoration, maybe Adam Cuerden can help with this. -- IamMM (talk) 05:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I can work to the schedule of an FP nomination. PDMCU says they're fine with D&Rs, so I'll try to get to them. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

h Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this needs more context in the description to be appreciated. How was the relationship between the two countries at the time this came out? Does this refer to any event in particular? It's not as bad as with the Judge cover, but it's still quite superficial. --El Grafo (talk) 07:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El Grafo: I expanded the description a bit (based on Business Insider). The years mentioned in the Business Insider article are not the same as the years mentioned in the source of the image and should be compared with reliable historical sources to reach verifiable information. IamMM (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@IamMM Thank you, now I can finally appreciate this. What you wrote seems to be in line with en:Greco-Persian Wars, but a general in the 5th century BC would have been fine for me as well. El Grafo (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support especially thanks to IamMM’s expanded description. --Aristeas (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 19:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Printed#Magazine_and_newspaper_illustrations_in_color

File:Oxford Union Library.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2022 at 13:42:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#United_Kingdom
Info created by Mdbeckwith - uploaded by Mdbeckwith - nominated by Mdbeckwith -- Mdbeckwith (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mdbeckwith (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image join errors (see note), and the composition makes the table look too prominent which detracts from the rest of the elements. It should be called "the Oxford library table" --Wilfredor (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out the joining error going, fixed it to the best of my ability. Mdbeckwith (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to agree with Wilfredor's critique of the composition. To be sure, in no way does the outsize attention to the nearest table make this a bad photo at all, just not an outstanding one, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. One problem about the room is that it is extremely small, my back was literally against the wall and so was the tripod. The room strangely enough gives rise to a symmetrical composition but with the tables and other things inside it, it gives absolutely no wiggle room at all. I could not have gone further back and to change the table in the foreground with regards to the composition and had done all I could. It is the same situation at the other end of the room. Mdbeckwith (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I might like the composition more if you crop it just in front of the lamps. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose On the most basic level, we have been spoiled on this kind of image by Diliff's work. But even setting that aside, there are other technical failings of this image besides the joining error. The contrast is not handled well at all—the highlights on the lamps, and some on the tables and book spines, are blown or nearly blown, and the upper windows have purple fringing. Further, at the sides, there is more distortion than I am willing to accept in an FP.
I think the image is also a little too warm and would benefit from a smidge of WB correction.
I also find the crop of the light up top awkward. It also feels visibly off-center due to the bulb in the middle not being on the same line as the ceiling axis behind it. This is exacerbated by the uneven crops on the table corners at bottom. Daniel Case (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice try and huge resolution but the lamps are far too bright for me and I also don't like that the bulb in the middle is so visibly off-centre Cmao20 (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hochaltar der Pfarrkirche Pfarrwerfen, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2022 at 15:25:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Altar with open wings
Altar with closed wings

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Austria
Info High altar at the parish church St. Cyriak in Pfarrwerfen, federal state of Salzburg, Austria. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent, allows to study the high altar in all details. – I wonder if it would be better to crop both photos in a similar manner to improve the set effect. But I support it in any case. --Aristeas (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Does this qualify as a set with different altar decoration etc? Also, do we not need same PoV, perspective, lens, crop? Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One remark from my side: The wings are closed during Lent, and then opened from Easter on for the rest of the year. The decoration of the altar is also according to this (e.g. purple color during Lent). Uoaei1 (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. If you feel inclined, you could further increase the value of these photos by describing all the scenes in your file descriptions. I was able to identify most of them, but that's because I've learned about them by viewing many depictions in Europe and wanting to know what I was looking at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ikan Kekek, thanks for your hint. There are individual images for each scene available, and I have put them as annotations together with the description. Uoaei1 (talk) 10:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's wonderful! Thank you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’d like to thank you, too! Now this is one of the (or just: the) best-explained altarpiece photo we have on Commons. --Aristeas (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of the panels now has an early depiction of Speedos! ps I think the 'wings' are known as door panels in English. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Quality is good but since the topic is more the panels paintings than the stainglasses, maybe the framing can be tighter and more focused on the former. I would also try to keep the same framing on a set, even if it's at the cost of some wasted space on the closed panels version. - Benh (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gobio (Gobius cruentatus), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2021-09-10, DD 62.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2022 at 21:27:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family_:_Gobiidae_(Gobies)
Info Red-mouthed goby (Gobius cruentatus), Arrábida Natural Park, Portugal. This species of goby is native to the Eastern Atlantic Ocean from southwestern Ireland to the coasts of Morocco and Senegal, and also in the Mediterranean Sea where it occurs in inshore waters at depths of from 15 to 40 metres (49 to 131 ft) in areas with rocky or sandy substrates or in meadows of sea-grass. Gobius cruentatus can reach a length of 18 centimetres (7.1 in) TL. It may also be found in the aquarium trade. Note: if successful it would be the first FP of the genus Gobius. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Sorry; I think this will be a good valued image if it's best in scope, but apart from doubts about whether it's sharp enough or stands out enough (camouflage being good for the fish but challenging for great photography), I don't feel like this is a great composition, though it might be a good enough one if I were otherwise satisfied. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen this species one time in my life, and I see detail there although the fish is not really big, but ok, that's your opinion. Poco a poco (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its status is "least concern," so it's somewhere. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But maybe I don't know enough to judge this photo fairly. You're right: it's not that big, and the fish is beautiful. I'll punt this to others, but I'm definitely more comfortable with nominations that are sharper. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this species is of least concern, does mean, as you say, that it's somewhere. But if this goby, or any other species, is e.g. prefering the 40 m depth rather than the 20 m (what I don't know) then you'll very rarely see it. Recreational diving ends at 30m. Below that we talk about technical diving, for which you need a special equipment and certificates. Poco a poco (talk) 07:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 09:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could be more of a contrast with the background but still very good capture Cmao20 (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the earth tones with the few blue-purple highlights. Daniel Case (talk) 03:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 05:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Fish#Family_:_Gobiidae_(Gobies)

File:Moroccan Berber.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2022 at 19:41:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Standing people
Info created and uploaded by Dieglop, nominated by Yann (talk)
Support -- Yann (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Or someone dressed up as a berber for the camera? (see the people in the background) Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Do the people in the background prove anything? Yes, it is staged, but why speculating that this guy is not a Berber? Yann (talk) 09:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We can also speculate more ;–). In Egypt I have often seen how men pose in traditional costumes for the tourists to take photographs. I would be surprised when Berber people would not know the same easy way to earn some money. (Please do not understand this as derogatory – I would do that myself if I was born there and would not have got a better job. ;–) Therefore why should this guy not be a Berber posing for the tourist’s photos? This obvious explanation is fully compatible with the people in the background. --Aristeas (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 likely situations here: either local people or tourists with a local guide. Even in the second case, there is no reason to suspect that this guy is not a Berber. This suspicion assumes that the photographer is lying, and there is no reason to suppose so. Yann (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer may just be making an assumption. Who knows? It is perfectly possible that the clean shaven man with short hair fooling around the berber scarf is a berber. I doubt it. Many tour guides in Morocco dress up like this. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say, couldn't a tour guide be a Berber? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicion is even less justified as Berbers are 40% of population in Morocco. Yann (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? So then, all things being equal, 40% of Moroccan tour guides would be Berbers. You thought I was saying that like it's a bad thing? It's not like this is an important sub-thread, but Charles seemed to be suggesting that Berbers and tour guides were mutually exclusive categories. When I see that kind of implication being made, I address it. That's all. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support For me this is a funny and jolly photo, featuring a simple and effective composition. I really like the harmonious desert colours and the shape formed by the unwrapped traditional headscarf in the wind. The quality is good (a higher resolution etc. would not improve this kind of photo); there are just some very small CAs, I can remove them if they irritate. --Aristeas (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. I also like that the scarf is practically the same color as the sand. Daniel Case (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support At first glance this yellow scarf appeared like a painting splash to me. Striking curves anyway -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas, Daniel and Basile. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Aristeas and Yann. There is no way to know for sure, and it doesn't matter to me whether this person is really a Berber or not. He is either really a Berber or he is there to evoke a native Berber for the tourists and seems successful in this. -- IamMM (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weakish Support Right. All we know is what we see; we judge the composition. And it's a very good composition, though perhaps it (and especially the man) could be sharper. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stepro (talk) 10:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#Standing people

File:Medulas 2018006.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2022 at 13:48:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Spain
Info created and uploaded by Anual, nominated by Yann (talk)
Info Only one FP of natural places in Spain.

Comment Well, there are more FPs of natural scenes in Spain (they are hidden on a special gallery (sub-)page). But I agree that this one would be quite unique, and in addition it would be the first ‘natural’ FP from the Province of León. --Aristeas (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Yann (talk) 13:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very nice scene and lighting, but not sharp enough and also some chromatic aberration. The composition could be improved by cropping out the distractingly bright road at the far left. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. Beautiful, but unfortunately not sharp enough. Pity. When I saw the thumbnail and the photo on the file page, I wanted to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. --Fischer.H (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per King of Hearts. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
great scene and idea but Oppose per others – insufficient quality, and unfortunate lighting (most of the foreground is in shadow). Contrast looks a bit overdone. Crop too tight on both sides. --Kreuz schnabel 10:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No exif data present, but I think that lack of deep of field. --Wilfredor (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Yann (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:2022-06-17 ALBA Berlin gegen FC Bayern München (Basketball-Bundesliga 2021-22) by Sandro Halank–068.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2022 at 17:37:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Other team sports
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Sandro Halank -- Sandro Halank (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sandro Halank (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exciting! You feel like you're right in front of them and they're coming toward you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very dynamic -- Karelj (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dynamic, but focus missed on man with the ball. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not perfect, but a lot better than most ball-sports shots I've seen here ... yes, the ball is out of focus, but they're looking towards the camera and their expressions and poses are great. Daniel Case (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It would be even better when the focus was on the face of the person with the ball, but (see Daniel’s point) it’s an intriguing photo. --Aristeas (talk) 08:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stepro (talk) 10:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Common garden lizard (Calotes versicolor) female Phang Nga.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2022 at 15:16:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family : Agamidae (Dragon Lizards)
Info I have no idea why she has climbed this 2m high dead tree trunk. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support But of course you know the reason: because it was there! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

with apologies to George Mallory of course! Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I was thinking of. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- IamMM (talk) 07:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 07:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles#Family : Agamidae (Dragon Lizards)

File:S. Pietro May 2022-15.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2022 at 14:29:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Italy
Info Dome of St Peter's Cathedral, Vatican City, Rome. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful capture. -- Radomianin (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Beautiful composition, large file, but there is some color noise at full size. Is there anything you can do about that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Info Yes, I could. But reducing color noise will also affect detail. What is the least of the evils? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but is either way an FP? That's the question we have to think about. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't study these ceiling images, but this looks soft. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Big pro: Normally we try to photograph such domes symetrically (looking exactly upwards); often this is not possible and a sloped view is all we can achieve, but most times the result is not appealing. You have managed to get a very attractive composition from the slightly sloped view – bravo! In addition the crepuscular rays (?) from the dome windows add a nice effect. – Neutral: Personally I would not mind the little noise: Given the resolution it is low, it is natural photon noise, and I like a little bit of noise much better than a mushy picture resulting from strong noise reduction. But you could try to increase the colour noise removal only (without increasing the monotone noise removal); this could give a cleaner result without reducing details. – Problems: The level of details could be higher; theoretically it should be possible to get more of the dome sharp at 24mm and f/8 (maybe the lens has got some field curvature which counteracts this?). I am not sure about the white balance and the colours – it seems too bluish/greenish. And it’s natural that some of the windows are blown, but nevertheless it would be better if the bars would be visible in all/most windows. --Aristeas (talk) 09:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC) Changed from neutral to WS after reading my own evaluation again. --Aristeas (talk) 11:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well executed, good time of day, focused and striking composition. Noise and sharpness could be improved with Topaz or other artificial intelligence tools that add false details, I prefer this type of noisy image because in the noise there is also important information that should not be removed or changed by details generated by an AI.--Wilfredor (talk) 11:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I don't know. The quality is barely OK. But I understand tripods are forbidden there (I photographed it myself, and it doesn't look good). The feature is the the light beam. I love them generally speaking, but I only wished this was going down rather than up. As it is, it's much less mystical. God reaches us, not some green guys in space. - 16:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Vote by User:Benh that forgot to sign --Wilfredor (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose: I like this photo, and it's a notable contribution, but is it truly exceptional? I have doubts about that, so I oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. -- Karelj (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas Cmao20 (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Benh. I know from experience what it's like trying to photograph this, albeit not with a sophisticated camera. The crepuscular rays make up for the background graininess. Daniel Case (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Photography is more than just 100iso photographs with razor sharpness. Henri Cartier-Bresson's photographs were not razor sharp (very blurred) had high grain / high ISO. His photographs are lauded as masterpieces even to today due to subject matter and composition et al. In my humble opinion the architectural subject matter is exceptional including the capture of it in the photograph, it is a good piece of work. -- Mdbeckwith (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A great statement, but typical Henri Cartier-Bresson photos are not static architecture shots (like this one), so IMHO the comparison is not 100% accurate ;–). Most (all?) theories of photography which I know, also from Cartier-Bresson’s time, apply different criteria to reportage photography vs. architectural/landscape photography vs. fashion photography vs. wildlife photography vs. portrait … everything in its own respect. It is arguable if we should compare our photos here with the work of classic photographers; but when we do it, we should compare our pictures to photographs of the same genre. Therefore for a mostly documentary Italian church photo like this one, we could compare e.g. photographs by Fratelli Alinari and by countless hard-working self-employed photographers like Giorgio Sommer. (Please be aware that the scans of their photos which we have at Commons often do not do justice to the quality of the original photos; the original prints are often of much better quality.) The result is simple: Although these photographers had to take care of a tremendous technical effort, which we can’t even imagine thanks to our digital cameras, and always had to carry their heavy view cameras, they attached greatest importance to a technically best possible image. And if we want to compare somewhat newer and certainly artistic photographs, e.g. the work of Cartier-Bresson’s contemporary Andreas Feininger may offer nice comparisons. Feiniger has worked in many genres, from reportage to macro to architecture photography, but he always selected the best possible tools – a Leica or medium-format camera for the reportage, a view camera for landscape and cityscape. He even constructed his own special ultra-telephoto view camera because no available camera was good enough. When Feininger rushed up the stairs of a New York skyscraper to photograph a special, unrepeatable lighting mood, he did not take his Leica, he still carried the big view camera. If one wants even more famous names, we can think of Ansel Adams who climbed the mountains with the view camera … These stories humble me; they remind me, at least, that while I may and must make compromises (for example, when the tripod is forbidden), I should still do everything as carefully as possible to meet the requirements and ideals of the genre in question; and for architectural and landscape photography this means to strive for the best possible techical quality. --Aristeas (talk) 08:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stepro (talk) 10:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:China-Schanghai-Jade Buddha-Temple-5176573.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2022 at 05:07:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Standing_people
Info created and uploaded by Ermell - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 05:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 05:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The concentration of the worshipper makes the photo special to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nom IamMM.--Ermell (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 06:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 09:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I guess I have to be "that guy". This certainly has it to be a VI and QI, but I honestly don't see FP here. The worshipper may indeed be very concentrated but her face is mostly turned away from the camera, and the composition of the image makes it hard to tell whether she or the fire is the subject. Daniel Case (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just want to tell you, your point of view makes sense to me on its own terms, although I don't see these things as problems, myself. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Satisfying composition Cmao20 (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would support, but I have serious problems with personal rights here. --Stepro (talk) 10:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 17:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#Traditions

File:Coral (Sarcophyton glaucum), parque nacional Ras Muhammad, Egipto, 2022-03-27, DD 24.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2022 at 11:07:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class : Anthozoa
Info created & uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 11:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 11:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice catch, thank you Tomer Poco a poco (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very sharp and I love the light, maybe one of your best coral photos Cmao20 (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find the light a bit strong, but well... --Yann (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 04:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stepro (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 17:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals#Class : Anthozoa

File:NASA astronaut Jonny Kim in high-altitude pressure suit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2022 at 08:25:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Space exploration#Astronauts
Info created by Norah Moran – NASA – Johnson - uploaded by Gildir - nominated by Gildir -- Gildir (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gildir (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting, but I'm not sure how to react to this. His face isn't fully in focus and he is looking away from the camera. Regardless of how this nomination plays out, this would be a good VI, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We could excuse the fact that he is looking away by the idea that he looks up to the sky (very appropriate for an astronaut ;–). But the unsharpness (motion blur?), especially in the face, really bothers me, because this is not an action shot, but a static portrait. --Aristeas (talk) 09:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant weak oppose per the motion blur ... Such a shame. Daniel Case (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. But please nominate to COM:VIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 17:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Reflexos no Covão d'Ametade.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2022 at 08:49:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Portugal
Info created & uploaded by RaquelRosa7 - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find this really beautiful, a winterscape that nevertheless feels lush from all those twigs. The circle really makes the composition satisfying. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 23:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 06:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The 'circle' is great, but not the trees in left foreground. Could remove red jacket/whatever? Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 11:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful opppose A scene I want to like enough to support but I find the trees too busy, too many and too disordered for it. Daniel Case (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Extraordinarily beautiful. One of those photos that you need to view at full size to appreciate Cmao20 (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stepro (talk) 10:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 17:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Schachbrett an Pusteblume.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2022 at 19:35:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)
Info Another extraordinary high-resolution butterfly pic from Sven Damerow and different in composition and, I believe, subject, to any of his other FPs (there are other FPs of this butterfly but none by him and none this resolution); I am sure there are some minor focus stack errors at full size that someone will find, but I really don't think it's important for a 45 megapixel image that gets almost everything right. created by Sven Damerow - uploaded by Sven Damerow - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed, very detailed and fascinating – even on the compound eyes are dewdrops. (The stacking halos are not very noticeable, imo.) -- Radomianin (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Both the butterfly and the plant should have categories. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Many thanks for your note, Ikan. The butterfly was already categorized but I refined it. Best wishes, -- Radomianin (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 03:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin. --Aristeas (talk) 09:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 10:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like a Cocteau Twins cover, but with recognizable subjects. Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive -- Wolf im Wald 00:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Gorgeous" is a word I don't use lightly, but here it fits. I could even do without the drops, find them almost a bit disturbing when viewing it at screen size. --El Grafo (talk) 08:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stepro (talk) 10:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support There are focus stacking errors, visible on the plant, but the animal is fine. Great composition, overall -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)

File:2022-02-18 FIL Luge World Cup Natural Track in Mariazell 2021-22 by Sandro Halank–126.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2022 at 10:48:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Individual snow sports
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Sandro Halank -- Sandro Halank (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sandro Halank (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question She has lost her balance. Why did you chooose this image? Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She has not lost her balance. This is a normal move for managing a hairpin turn in natural track luge. In contrast to luge on the artificial track, athletes in natural track luge cannot lie flat on the sled. I chose the picture because you can pretty well understand her full concentration on the track and the fight for the hundredth of a second, also here in training. --Sandro Halank (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I dodn't notice it was natural track. A rather inelegant event as a result. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Impressive. Yann (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 19:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support great action shot --El Grafo (talk) 08:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:JudgeMagazine19May1894.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2022 at 06:32:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

1894 anti-Democratic political cartoon from Judge magazine

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Printed#Magazine_and_newspaper_illustrations_in_color
Info created by Judge [Bernhard Gilliam] - uploaded by PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC) - nominated by PDMagazineCoverUploading -- PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info Slightly modified to remove the Google watermark.
Support -- Testing the waters to see if people think the Judge covers are high-quality enough for FP status. PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Technical quality is OK (though not astonishing), but the whole thing is kind of pointless as it is now. Political caricatures are unlike most other kinds of visual arts in that they not only benefit from but essentially require knowledge about their context. I don't expect the description to explain the whole situation to me (although that would be great). But it should at least tell me who these people are supposed to be and what the general context is. I shouldn't have to use Google to find out about the en:Wilson–Gorman Tariff Act. --El Grafo (talk) 07:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with this. A great image but not a huge photo, but regardless of whether it's nominated here or at COM:VIC, background information is needed in the file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also be happier if it wasn't relatively low resolution, and had a more sensitive adjustment. It feels like autolevels. This is little more than a fat joke at Taft's expense, and I'd want to tweak the colours, but it's better reproduction quality. . Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This might also merit consideration. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support More resolution would be nice, but quite interesting and FP to me Cmao20 (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question This appears to be a page scan. PDMagazineCoverUploading, do you know if the scan is 1:1, so that the cover was actually this size? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Information should be on the HathiTrust page PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 03:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had already looked on their site without it being evident at what ratio these pages were scanned or otherwise digitized before I asked you what you might know. By the way, I notice that every page says "Digitized by Google, Original from University of Michigan". Shouldn't you include that on the file page? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears accurate to other covers of Judge I've seen, if you don't include borders. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think this is a great image, so I

Support but that's kind of conditional on the information about the original and who digitized it being added along with a link to w:Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act, with the point being made that that's the subject of the illustration. Cool, PDMagazineCoverUploading? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great. Sorry I haven't responded sooner, I've had some difficult issues in my personal life and have had to take a break from the wiki for a few days. PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that and hope things improve. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I judge the image and not the meaning conveyed. And the picture has no "wow" for me unfortunately. --Stepro (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yellowstone National Park (WY, USA), Grand Prismatic Spring -- 2022 -- 2514.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2022 at 08:02:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United_States#Wyoming
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 08:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 08:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 04:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Very nice, but I wonder if a 5-10% crop off the bottom (where it is not too sharp) would help? Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I don't know, but I tried a minor crop at the bottom. --XRay 💬 11:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ivar (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gebarsten bloemknop van een Kogellook (Allium sphaerocephalon) 15-05-2022. (d.j.b) 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2022 at 15:24:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family : Amaryllidaceae
Info Cracked flower bud of a Allium sphaerocephalon. Focus stack of 17 photos.}}
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is not very sharp and the background is blotchy. I think the benchmark is higher than this. Compare the definition on George's Alceanomination and the shortcomings (probably of the camera) become obvious. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's not that bad, but imo this is a better version, but it needs some cloning and a bit less sharpening. --Ivar (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMHO it’s not unsharp, it has just not been oversharpened in post-processing. – However I would agree that the version mentioned by Ivar would be even better. --Aristeas (talk) 05:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I Support this, although the version that Ivar mentioned is better than this one in some ways. -- IamMM (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp enough for me Cmao20 (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stepro (talk) 10:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Indian tightrope girl performing folk art Baunsa Rani.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2022 at 07:19:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Traditions
Info created and uploaded by Manir Dhabak - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- IamMM (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful silhouette. --Aristeas (talk) 09:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak support~~ I'd have cropped the heads at the bottom Poco a poco (talk) 10:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I remove my vote. The versions below are better, thank you IqmMM Poco a poco (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Poco a poco, XRay, and Aristeas: Please consider the cropped versions, in the first one the heads are removed from the bottom and in the second one the rope stick is removed from the left side. -- IamMM (talk) 12:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose in favor of the cropped versions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Versions[edit]

Crop 1

Crop 2

Crop 1

Neutral Better, but I prefer crop 2 Poco a poco (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support both cropped versions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crop 2

Support Good idea, even better, I go for it Poco a poco (talk)•
Support If cropped, then this one. @IamMM: It's CC BY-SA 4.0: You must add your name as author. Source should be a link to the original. --XRay 💬 15:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should be ok now. -- IamMM (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the author for you. ;-) --XRay 💬 04:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- IamMM (talk) 05:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- IamMM (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support both cropped versions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pleasant composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The best of the three. --Aristeas (talk) 04:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stepro (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice silhouette, and crop 2 shows the best image without having heads in the foreground. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 12:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#Traditions

The chosen alternative is: File:Indian tightrope girl performing folk art Baunsa Rani (Crop 2).jpg

File:Moltbærtinden and Breiflogtinden over Reinevågen in Moskenes, Nordland, Norway, 2022 June.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2022 at 00:12:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Norway
Info created & uploaded by User:Ximonic - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is not Ximonic's biggest picture, but I think the shapes of the mountains and the light serve as an amazing backdrop to this scene in small-town Norway. As an aside, I hadn't seen "Places/Settlements" as an option before, and I'm glad it exists, because this is not really a cityscape, but neither is it a purely natural scene: it's a combination of human habitation in the foreground and nature in the background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Appealing composition, special light -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great (summmer night?!) light and a special place. --Aristeas (talk) 04:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very effective use of telephoto compression. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please say something about how that's done and what the result of the compression was. I don't know how Ximonic made this photo, only what I see. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying there was any particular technique; "compression" here just refers to the visual effect of making near and far things appear at true relative size, the opposite of wide-angle distortion. It's all about taking a telephoto lens and finding a tiny, beautiful sliver of the landscape to highlight. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I get what you're saying. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed quite "normal" telephoto technically, but taken far away. Taken somewhat towards where the sun is but not quite, which gives a golden atmosphere, I think. Thank you for nomination! --Ximonic (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per King. Great example of lanscape telephoto. And the light is gorgeous. - Benh (talk) 10:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 10:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 10:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 11:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The mountains and the lighting mood do remind me a bit of the mountains of Helm's Deep valley in Lord of the Rings. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Radomianin, I heard Tolkien was heavily inspired by Finland and the Finnish mythology, which is not far away. Who knows, he may have been inspired by Norwegian nature if he ever saw it? I certainly would. --Ximonic (talk) 11:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comment, maybe one day scientists will discover if he was there. Personally, I am pretty sure he was a lover of Scandinavian nature. Best wishes :) -- Radomianin (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support After seeing this image, I really miss Nordland and would like to revisit the region. Like the light, colour and a great use of telephoto compression. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 15:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Coincidentally I saw a documentary of this place a few days ago --Wilfredor (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stepro (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nothing like that midnight sunlight on mountains in the Arctic ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above :) Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 12:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Oil shale - from research to reality 04. Enefit280 plant - On the platform, view to the retort.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2022 at 10:13:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Industry
Info created and uploaded by User:Veerdelauri - nominated by Benh (talk) 10:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Benh (talk) 10:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting. Not fully sharp at full size, probably because of panoramic viewer problems, but fully sharp at a large size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I have same issue with panoramic viewer. It doesn't want to load the high res pic (something wrong on mediawiki or wikimedia's servers I guess). So i'm viewing the thing in a local viewer instead and it's indeed very sharp. - Benh (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question Which viewer are you using? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FSPViewer. It's a bit slow and there are probably better ones out there. But it does the job. - Benh (talk) 11:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it looks amazing with that program! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Not the kind of place you visit everyday -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 10:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support A great view of an interesting subject. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 12:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Red grasshawk (Neurothemis fluctuans) male Phuket 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2022 at 00:47:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Libellulidae (Chasers, Skimmers, Darters and others)
Info created & uploaded by User:Charlesjsharp - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I hope I did this nomination correctly; determining exactly the right format can be very difficult, and I try to do as well as I can by looking at FP categories and relatively similar previous nominations. Anyway, this is one of at least two FP-quality photos of male red grasshawks I've seen from Charles lately. File:Red grasshawk (Neurothemis fluctuans) male Phuket 3.jpg is also a worthy candidate and should be nominated. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Not very large resolution. But the light is fine in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for the nomination. I have added the focus-stacked template. This is from ten images. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for doing that. Happy to nominate this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support we've seen far better in terms of sharpness and details, but the composition and colours more than make up for these in that case and in my opinion. - Benh (talk) 10:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I love the stance the dragonfly is in and the light and color of the background, but the sharpness and details are also very good to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 10:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 10:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Benh.--Ermell (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support stunning -- Wolf im Wald 00:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, there is wow here, I like the open wings Poco a poco (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's great for me --Stepro (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great, but something on the head seems to be blurry. It may just be the insect itself, though. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 12:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Libellulidae (Chasers, Skimmers, Darters and others)

File:Shiva statue at CERN 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2022 at 21:09:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Statues outdoors
Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Peacearth-Peacearth (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support-Peacearth (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sculpture in the shadow. The texture, the relief and the details are thus indistinct. Also the picture needs perspective correction, as the building at the right is leaning in (fixable) -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose And on top of that, there's just too much going on in the composition. Daniel Case (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I considered this a QI at QIC, but I think the statue is just not well enough lit to make this a great photo. There are also minor issues that can matter in a determination of whether a photo is among the very best on Commons: the light is partially cropped on the left. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 12:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Waste hall - in Iru Thermal Power Plant.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2022 at 22:12:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People at work
Info created & uploaded by Lauri Veerde - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unusual subject for any kind of nomination here, let alone a 3D shot, and very well done. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Disgusting but interesting -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition, which isn't easy on a 360°. Small visible stitching seam in the middle. Benh (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment reminds me of the Wall-A scene in Wall-E - Benh (talk) 10:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 10:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Benh. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This image is really good, I wonder how it was made with so many moving elements, and then put the parts together --Wilfredor (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very unique subject and very high quality. NightWolf1223 (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very immersive, excellent use of a 360° panorama. --El Grafo (talk) 07:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 09:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting scenery, it would be though good to get to know information about frames, camera, lens and so on, there is nothing available Poco a poco (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per others. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 12:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#People at work

File:Dalmatiner Polster-Glockenblume (Campanula portenschlagiana) Blüte Focus stack-20220528-RM-174230.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2022 at 13:20:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Family_:_Campanulaceae
Info Blossom of a bellflower. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. Well-composed focus-stacked photos of flowers with pretty light like this are not palling on me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great DoF and nice light -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 05:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support !! -- Radomianin (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent and beautiful. --Aristeas (talk) 07:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support nicely taken... --SHB2000 (talk) 10:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 15:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 07:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stepro (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 02:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Asterales#Family_:_Campanulaceae

File:Holger Drachmann, fra Klæbels samling - Restoration.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2022 at 22:04:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Men
Info Unknown creator - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info This is quite an old restoration of mine. I think it holds up, but I may have missed something. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good portrait, though I wish the photographer hadn't cropped his hands like that. Unnecessarily large file. It looks spooky when you zoom in his eyes to full size. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stepro (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 02:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People/Portrait#Men

File:Площадь Тверская Застава (вид сверху).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2022 at 19:09:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Russia
Info A busy road intersection at Tverskaya Zastava Square in Moscow, Russia. Created by Mos.ru - uploaded by Александр Мотин - nominated by Александр Мотин -- Александр Мотин (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Александр Мотин (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special about this spot, image quality isn't satisfying. --A.Savin 20:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In an image of this kind of subject, I'm looking for really satisfying shapes, as A.Savin says above. This has some interesting shapes, but it doesn't add up to a great composition to me, through no fault of the photographer, but just because the combination of the shapes of the streets and so forth is not exceptional. However, this is likely to be a good VI if nominated in the relevant scope at COM:VIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I disagree with the other votes about the composition/shapes --Lupe (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I actually find the shape very interesting. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin and Ikan Kekek. --SHB2000 (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find this very interesting both aesthetically and content-wise. Over the days, I've probably spent about 10 minutes staring at this, trying to figure out the concept behind this layout. --El Grafo (talk) 08:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per El Grafo and Frank Schulenburg. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 02:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eurasian brown bear (Ursus arctos arctos) female 3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2022 at 09:06:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family : Ursidae (Bears)
Info Two current FPs of animals in captivity and one in a rehabilitation centre. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question This is a wildlife animal? --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all my images are of wild animals. Corn is put out to attract the bears, who do not always come. We had to sit for 6 hours in a small hide not speaking or eating or going to the loo. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support though for me File:Eurasian brown bear (Ursus arctos arctos) female 1.jpg is the best one out of this series. --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 15:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice lighting mood, pretty creature. The blurred details in the foreground I do not find disturbing, they give the image more depth, imo. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If you have a sense of approximately how big this individual was, you could add it to the file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 07:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive. --Aristeas (talk) 09:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a nice picture. Different enough from the other one. --Ximonic (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Last time I was in a hide no bait was used, though. The lynx show up after sunset...Poco a poco (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Aristeas (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals#Family : Ursidae (Bears)

File:Kassel asv2022-02 img45 Wilhelmshöhe tram station.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2022 at 11:49:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Rail vehicles
Info Historical tram station at Kassel-Wilhelmshöhe with a Düwag NGT6C tram on route 1. All by me --A.Savin 11:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 11:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question I like this photo and would like to support a photo of this motif, but is a photo of it in this weather and light really outstanding? This is a serious question: Do you mean to produce a somewhat depressed or enervated reaction in the viewer? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can not always choose weather. It happened to be like this at that day and place. Sometimes overcast is favorable though: less harsh shadows, more directions you can choose to take pictures. Regards --A.Savin 18:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Somewhat overcast, sure, but this dull blue-gray? I'll live with the photo longer, but I will probably oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, and I'd love to see this motif in nicer light and better weather. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Nice and well-composed, but with the dull light, no more than a good QI for me. Looks a bit oversharpened when pixelpeeping. --Kreuz schnabel 06:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support even though I agree with the opposers' points, as I see this image as just managing to capture Germany in a single shot: the juxtaposition of the historic, ornate, sedately colored station with the bright, streamlined modern tram, against a background of the kind of dreary weather that prevails in Germany more often than not due to the climate. I am not betting on the image being promoted, but I still think I should cast this !vote. Daniel Case (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Daniel has made a good point, and I would like to second the moral support. The overcast weather does not allow for a dramatic etc. impression, but because it avoids harsh shadows it gives you a very detailed impression. BTW: The photo is not oversharpened; it shows just the resolution you get from the sensor of the α7R II/III (which omits the usual anti-alias filter) and a good lens. You can tell the difference when looking at the details – here the sharpness impression comes from microcontrast, while oversharpening emphasizes the (macro-)contrast and can’t reconstruct the microcontrast. --Aristeas (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neither the composition/subject, nor the ligthing nor the detail are extraordinary to me. I also find all those cables a minus, Poco a poco (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per others. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Kreuzschnabel and Poco..--GRDN711 (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Aristeas (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marmota Marmota on Franz Josef Hoehe - 2019 - 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2022 at 18:36:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family : Sciuridae (Squirrels)
Info created by Ato 01 - uploaded by Ato 01 - nominated by Ato 01 -- ato (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ato (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A nice, pretty sharp capture of the marmots, and I understand why it was nominated, but I don't think we see enough of the marmots clearly enough for this to be an FP. The snow (I think it is) in the background is a little distracting because it's brighter than the animals, which are partly dark; plants sort of look like they're growing out of the head of the marmot on the left; and then there's the tall grass in front of them, which might not have mattered as much if other elements were cooperating more. Basically, this photo is what Daniel Case and some others would call "too busy", with too much distracting the viewer from the subject(s) while otherwise harming and not helping the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The background is obviously a rock, not snow. Yann (talk) 09:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that it's a rock now that you say so, but the point is that it's distracting. If you want to make some point about that based on it being "obvious" that it's a rock, that's up to you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 09:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per Ikan. Good image but rock in backgtround is very distracting. --GRDN711 (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 04:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question Do you mean oppose per me? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case? Your vote is the 7th vote right now, so I just want to make sure you wanted to support, not oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: Thank you for the catch! You are correct ... I had actually caught it while !voting, but realized I wanted to change something else, and forgot to go back and change the !vote. Daniel Case (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support simply because I would definitely hang it on the wall --Stepro (talk) 10:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 12:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I know I know I know … but … I keep looking at this one again and again, somehow the gesture of the two animals fascinates me. So it seems I have to support ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan and others. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 01:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rumex thyrsiflorus - Kulna.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2022 at 15:11:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Polygonaceae
Info all by Ivar (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 21:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support As usual, a beautiful and professional work. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wanted to write the same as Radomianin, he was faster ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 07:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 07:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing excptional on this flower image for the FP nominatiom, IHMO. -- Karelj (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Green Tree Python 0A2A0428.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2022 at 05:22:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family_:_Pythonidae_(Pythons)
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison – nominated by Ivar (talk) 05:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Ivar (talk) 05:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fascinating capture. (The vignetting caused by the triggered flash doesn't bother me in this case, imo.) -- Radomianin (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid this PoV is not for me and the flash pattern is very obvious. The snake is not shown to its best advantage - no eyes is always an issue. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Both eyes are visible --Llez (talk) 04:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment OK, they are. But you know what I mean. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Charlesjsharp: I don't know, what did you mean. Is this bad advantage with no eyes too? --Ivar (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think - if Charles will forgive me - that he's trying to say that photos that include the side of a snake's head are more interesting and expressive than just seeing the top of the head. You miss out on the jaw and eyes from the top are less expressive. I do agree, however, I don't consider it a deal breaker when the scale patterning on the back is so aesthetically pleasing in this shot. I think you need a draw for a picture, and a snake's "face" is an easy draw, but it's not the only one possible. Now, if you had this with the aesthetic coiling and a little more of the face, I'd be even more pleased, but I still Support as-is. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The snake is great as usual, but to my mind, there's a bunch of unnecessary space to the right that's not needed for lead room, so I'll probably abstain. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 19:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stepro (talk) 10:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful contrast. However, per Ikan, could we see an alt version with some of the right space cropped out? — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:08, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles#Family_:_Pythonidae_(Pythons)

File:Anémona tubo mediterránea (Cerianthus membranaceus), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2021-09-09, DD 49.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2022 at 15:30:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class_:_Anthozoa
Info Cylinder anemone (Cerianthus membranaceusi), Arrábida Natural Park, Portugal. This tube-dwelling anemone has an oral disc with a diameter of up to 40 cm (16 in). There are two whorls of tentacles, amounting to about two hundred tentacles in all. Those in the outer whorl are long and slender and armed with cnidocytes (stinging cells) and are used for catching prey. Tentacles in the inner whorl are shorter and function to transfer captured food to the central mouth. This species is found on the seabed in shallow water in the Mediterranean Sea, the northern Adriatic Sea and the northeastern Atlantic Ocean, its range extending as far north as Britain. The tentacles of Cerianthus membranaceus do not retract, but the whole animal can retreat into its tube. As it does so, some of the tentacles grip the rim and pull the tube closed behind it, effectively making it disappear from view. The tube is normally a permanent home, but if the anemone is disturbed from below, as by a burrowing sea urchin, it can eject itself from its tube, move to a new location and secrete a new tube. C. membranaceus feeds on small fish and planktonic organisms which it catches with its tentacles. It is a protandrous hermaphrodite, starting life as a male and becoming a female later. The lifespan of C. membranaceus in the wild is not known, but some individuals have been occupants of a tank in Naples Aquarium for more than fifty years. Note: we have only this FP of this family (same species) but taken in an aquarium. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI for sure, but sorry, imo the background spoils it and there are more eye-catching specimens at category Cerianthus membranacea and more outstanding images at FP category. --Ivar (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you may be right, but those eye-catching images are either from an aquarium (where they usually use fluorescent light) or have little detail or a bad crop, I don't think that any of those images would have more odds to become FP than this one (my opinion, of course). Regarding the exiting FPs, well, I don't know, surely there are other anemones that look prettier with more colours and so on, but here I enjoy the amount of tentacles, the different types of them and the detail --Poco a poco (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent image quality and per Poco some anemones might look prettier but this still deserves the star Cmao20 (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support --Aristeas (talk) 09:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose distracting background --Lupe (talk) 12:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I haven't voted on this nomination yet, but it's a very good photo of the anemone, and I don't understand the complaints about the background - what background? Sand and shells? What's wrong with that? My main question would be why are some of the tentacles white while others are purple? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I have been wondering the same. There is no coral in the Mediterranean Sea or in the Eastern Atlantic, so the background is typically just sand. The difference in color between the shorter and the longer tentacles is something I cannot explain. I googled but didn't find any reasoning for that. Poco a poco (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blends in with the background too much for me, per Ivar and Lupe. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals#Class_:_Anthozoa

File:Esponja (Scalarispongia scalaris), Ċirkewwa, Malta, Malta, 2021-08-24, DD 31.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2022 at 20:32:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Phylum_:_Porifera
Info Sea sponge (Scalarispongia scalaris), Ċirkewwa, Malta Island, Malta. Note: it's the second attempt to get a FP of this sponge species. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's a nice image, but I fail to see what's extraordinary about this pic. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SHB2000, thanks for your feedback, what I see is a candidate from an order (Dictyoceratida) or even a subclass (Keratosa) from which we have no FP, that's in fact extraordinary and therefore I consider the candidate to be original. I also find the quality pretty good for an underwater shot and the form is also peculiar, most of this kind of sponges look like a ball, not like a ring. Poco a poco (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like it – good quality shot of a fascinating black creature. This sponge looks somewhat other-worldly to me ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it, too, and it's nice and sharp. I only regret that the shells make the background on the left not as harmonious as the rest of the background, but that might be asking too much. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. -- IamMM (talk) 09:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support @ Ikan Kekek: This are not shells, but algae, I suppose Padina pavonica (peacock's tail) or a related species --Llez (talk) 10:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right id Llez, thank you! you see them often in the area. Poco a poco (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining that, Llez. It doesn't change my reaction to how they look in the context of this composition, but it's interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another great underwater shot :) — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals#Phylum_:_Porifera

File:Sanzieux Orge Cordeau.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2022 at 19:35:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Agriculture#France
Info This photo seems to break a lot of rules of composition - placing the leading lines in a strange place towards the edge of the frame, for instance - but I find the effect really compelling and I also enjoy the light and the lovely cloud formations. The longer I look at this one the more painterly it seems. Would also be the first FP from this French département. created by MirandaAdramin - uploaded by MirandaAdramin - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed very painterly. --Aristeas (talk) 09:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've spent time looking at this since it was nominated. It's got pretty elements and definitely deserves to be considered a QI, but the composition doesn't add to me, so I really don't get why you all think it should be featured. I also don't really find it that painterly: it strikes me as an unusual subject for a landscape, which would at least be likely to include more sky, or otherwise, could start around halfway up this picture frame to feature less of the grass and emphasize the trees, sky and mountains more - in other words, the IMO more interesting parts of the picture. I know one living painter who could make a painting like this, but he would probably create a satisfying composition by using different thicknesses of paint, cuts on the picture frame that create additional straight lines, and some added pieces of canvas or paper in certain places, none of which (or the like) would be done on a relatively unretouched digital photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Unexceptional to me. Composition with too much grass. Ordinary trees. Not a bad picture but nothing incredible either in this landscape, in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile Morin. --Fischer.H (talk) 09:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per above. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but nothing more --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. I'm sure an actual painting of this scene, if done by a famous French impressionist or in a reasonable (um) impression of their style and technique, might be featurable. But just because it might make a featurable image of a painting does not mean that the scene depicted would make a featurable photograph. Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Stepro (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, Stepro, you need to give a reason for opposing. Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you're right of course. The reason is like Basile - it's just an ordinary landscape picture for me. Stepro (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Basile Morin. -- Karelj (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Ikan and others. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Botanical Congress 6c 1969 issue U.S. stamps.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2022 at 09:06:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Others#Stamps
Info created by Bureau of Engraving and Printing. Designed by Stanley W. Galli. - uploaded by MrFrosty2 - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 09:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 09:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Every stamp is unique and interesting. The resolution is high enough considering that it is a block of stamps not a single one, it is not necessarily possible to get a higher resolution with your average scanner. I don't know about this one --Lupe (talk) 10:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice sharp scan. (The resolution could be higher, but it is high enough to study how the stamps were printed, so it’s OK.) --Aristeas (talk) 09:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't see why a fairly low resolution scan of a block of common stamps should be FP. Anyone with a scanner could produce a better scan in a couple of minutes. There are many US stamps that might be worthy of FP, but this isn't. Not rare; not valuable and no philatelic interest. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charlesjsharp --Karelj (talk)
Oppose per Karel and Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charlesjsharp — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Andrei (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:B.L.E.A.G. No. 7 -01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2022 at 04:46:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Rail vehicles
Info The picture shows the 1000mm narrow-gauge Mallet tank locomotive B.L.E.A.G. No. 7^s (former 7^kk) on its last journey through Rüppurr in March 1958; Photo by H. Schlafer (1958), restored, uploaded, and nominated by me -- Llez (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty good overall. There's still a number of white spots and hairs, though some care will be needed not to edit out a rivet - I didn't mark everything, but I marked some examples of stuff to look at. Should probably upload the original as well, for documentation. It's pretty good, just needs that tiny bit more work with the healing brush. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Done and some more, thanks --Llez (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support, couple minor things, but... Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm having trouble supporting this photo, as it's unsharp even merely at full page on my 23.5-inch monitor. What were the original dimensions of the print? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Info It is a 6x9 cm photo, made with an amateur camera --Llez (talk) 08:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support OK, it's tiny, so the fact that it even looks good on the file page is notable. Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Some minor blemishes on the image make it unsuitable for FP, IMO. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eurasian brown bear (Ursus arctos arctos) female 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2022 at 21:27:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family : Ursidae (Bears)
Info A fully grown adult. I hope worth consideration - not the same bear as the other nomination. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 01:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf, do you like bears? :-) Basile Morin (talk) 03:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I like bears and wolves! ;-) -- Wolf im Wald 15:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support In its natural environment -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support stunning quality, esp. considering the high ISO --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The R6 can cope with IS0 6400 if you are close enough which is a great help in fading light. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Martin. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 07:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support It reminds me of one of Byrdyak's FPs, but it's ok. The composition of this one is different enough, it has better quality and its face is more cute. -- IamMM (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 18:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Did you then run away or did you put your macro lens on?--Ermell (talk) 07:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you go down in the woods today, you'd better go in disguise Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 10:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per IanMM! Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although, I am wondering if a tighter crop might not improve this (see note). But ... at the same time I can see how the image benefits from showing the bear's natural environment, and I defer to the photographer's well-demonstrated judgement in this area. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy for others to crop for a particular use, but I like the forest environment. So un-zoolike. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the crop as it is. It's nicely composed and showing the bear in its natural environment adds value. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support No crop, please Poco a poco (talk) 09:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support But I would have preferred to have the whole body in focus (more depth of field) --Wilfredor (talk) 13:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but technically impossible without unacceptably high ISO. The bear is on the move so slower shutter speed not possible. Perhaps with very expensive prime lens, but I don't have one. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pile on support! --Ivar (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 26 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals#Family : Ursidae (Bears)

File:Couple with mobile phones at Senso-ji (cropped).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2022 at 13:46:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Sitting_people
Info created by William Warby - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 13:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 13:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Too blurry, even for QI --H₂O^(talk) 14:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How on earth is it possible to get such awful quality out of this excellent camera? --Kreuz schnabel 15:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuzschnabel, ich empfinde diesen Kommentar als herabwürdigend und verletzend. Bitte lass uns hier einen sachlichen Umgangston ohne Sarkasmus pflegen. Grüße, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Ich glaube nicht, dass der Autor hier mitliest, das Bild kommt von flickr. 2. Ich nutze die E-M1 II selbst und wüsste nicht, wie ich das hinbekommen sollte, wenn ein Kunde es wünscht, außer heftiger Nachbearbeitung. 3. Es war eine sachlich gemeinte Frage sowie ein kleiner Aufschrei des Entsetzens und in keiner Weise verletzend gemeint. 4. Da der Nominierer hier selbst ausgezeichnete Bilder beisteuert, kann ich mir diese Nominierung nur mit einem Irrtum erklären, und dann sollte man eine kleine Frotzelei schon vertragen. --Kreuz schnabel 17:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Das Gegenteil ist der Fall: niemand hier muss verletzende Kommentare vertragen, sondern wir alle haben die Verpflichtung, respektvoll miteinander umzugehen. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2022 (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: very poor quality, nothing special at all

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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kreuzschnabel (talk • contribs)

If we add a {{FPX}} to a nomination, let us please make sure to sign it. FPX is a strong verdict, it should never be added anonymously. I have supplemented the {{Unsigned}} template to attribute the FPX. --Aristeas (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Actually, I have been looking if there’s a field within the template for the signature but as I didn’t find one, I just set it without. Maybe that should be added. --Kreuz schnabel 20:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a problem. Just use 4 tildes as usual at the end. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination —Bruce1ee^talk 15:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:2021-12-07 Unterzeichnung des Koalitionsvertrages der 20. Wahlperiode des Bundestages by Sandro Halank–016.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2022 at 15:48:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Standing people
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Sandro Halank -- Sandro Halank (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sandro Halank (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry to say this, but with that strong artifacts all over their faces and around the edges (even in the background) at just 10 megapixels, quality is below FP level. Colours are cold and strangely greenish. Contrast overdone (booklet covers overexposed, suits too dark). Klingbeil is definitely out of focus even in preview. No wow in composition or anything else about the contents to compensate for the drawbacks. Is this a JPEG out of camera, or have you developed from raw file? --Kreuz schnabel 19:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuzschnabel. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Historically important perhaps but no wow. Now, if that table weren't in the front, and all three of them were dressed more alike (the guy on the left could have lost the tie), standing the same distance apart and holding the document at the same angle with the same exact grip ... Daniel Case (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good but no wow. Please nominate to COM:VIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carl Van Vechten - Shirley Graham Du Bois.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2022 at 22:01:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Women
Info created by Carl Van Vechten] - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support - If this were a new photo, I'd complain about the lack of contrast between her profile and the cloth (I believe it is) in the background (or wallpaper, whatever), but as you say, historical photos can't be retaken, and I think it's worth supporting in spite of that one shortcoming. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Ikan. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People/Portrait#Women

File:FIA F2 Austria 2022 Nr. 25 Cordeel (backfire).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2022 at 21:08:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Motorsports
Info created by Lukas Raich - uploaded by Lukas Raich - nominated by Lukas Raich -- Lukas Raich (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lukas Raich (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very tight crop. Not enough space around the vehicle in my view for a successful composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile, and in addition, whatever that blurry thing is in the lower right corner is distracting. Very good picture of the vehicle, but you need a fair amount more space in front of it (i.e., to the viewer's left). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop. The faster it goes, the more en:Lead room it needs. Leftmost corner of car even cut off! --Kreuz schnabel 05:32, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop too tight and per Ikan and Basile. I really can't stand the bottom left corner of the car, even if it's a small piece, being cut. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per others (crop). — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per others, and also the CA apparent on the vehicle. It's time to withdraw this nomination as it has with this racked up six oppose !votes against no supports in the past three days. Daniel Case (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 08:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rakvere Linnus - Refektoorium.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2022 at 22:12:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created & uploaded by Lauri Veerde - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really like this subject matter, but please help me get a really fair 3D view of this. I opened it with the 360° panoramic viewer linked on the file page and was dissatisfied with its sharpness, especially on the far wall, but when I opened it normally, the far wall was totally sharp. Is there something I could do to see a sharper 3D version? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For some reason, this 360° panoramic viewer hasn't worked for over a year (there are some older files like this where it works and loads a full sized image). Nowdays it just loads the small version but never finishes the full-size version. Same with other images. I have no clue why it is so. Kruusamägi (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great with FSPViewer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support The 3D view works for me -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive. @Kruusamägi: Could you translate the description on the description page into English? This would be very helpful, thanks! --Aristeas (talk) 08:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Kruusamägi (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you very much, Kruusamägi! --Aristeas (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great, except for the clipped whites on the window, but not easy to handle. - Benh (talk) 09:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support A shame for the burnt window but still nice overall Poco a poco (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Benh. Daniel Case (talk) 02:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some of the image (especially on the edges) seems to be too bright. (See the armour stand on the left.) — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 06:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 08:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Oil shale - from research to reality 03. Enefit280 plant, view of the plant.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2022 at 10:11:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Industry
Info created and uploaded by User:Veerdelauri - nominated by Benh (talk) 10:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think all of these 360° deserve nom. Let me use my quota to help. -- Benh (talk) 10:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Same remarks as for the other oil shale nom. I think in a few decades, when this industry no longer exists, these will be great historical documents. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 10:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The garbage disposal candidate really wowed me for being so much more than a 360° view of a place I'll never be able to visit. Compared to that, this one feels more like a VI candidate to me. --El Grafo (talk) 07:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
while the Wall-E candidate is incredible, I'm finding opposing that one a bit extreme. The execution is like flawless, and the composition is also pretty good with all the shadow patterns, how the sun was handled. One can easily tell this was carefully planned, shot and processed. Not sure we can say the same of some other FP here. And VI sounds more like "unique, but crappy pics" to me, which clearly isn't the case here. - Benh (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Side point, but I have to object to your take on VIs. They are best in scope, which can often mean an FP, if there is one. In fact, I'd urge more people to nominate FPs when they are also the most useful images in a given scope at thumbnail size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support One of the first of these panoramas I've seen here where more than one view would by itself be a good FP candidate. Daniel Case (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Benh, we don't have many 360° images on FP. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 17:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Shlomo Hillel 1970.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2022 at 19:36:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Men
Info created by Fritz Cohen - uploaded by Lonparis - restored/nominated by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 19:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 19:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't know if I would support this nomination otherwise, but there is a scratch across his head that settles the issue for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan Kekek. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Scatch over the head removed Ezarateesteban 22:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm seeing other scratches, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More scratches removed Ezarateesteban 16:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Better. Not perfect, but I will cross out my opposing vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a good picture, but not oustanding for me. --Stepro (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Stepro. Also, the slight pinkish tinge to the background compared with the grayscale portrait makes me wonder if the former is original or if something was switched during the restoration. Daniel Case (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gildir (talk) 10:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like it, but it does have some issues (See above.) — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good pic but not a breathtaking photograph. The colour cast should be fixed at least. --Kreuz schnabel 08:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment colour cast fixed Ezarateesteban 19:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 20:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Female owlfly[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2022 at 10:24:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

wings open
wings closed

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family : Myrmeleontidae (Antlions and Owlflies)
Info This aerial predator looks a bit like a dragonfly with its net wings wings open and like a moth with its wings closed. The clubbed antennae are the give-away. Both images focus-stacked. No owlfly FPs. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment imo this is not a set according to the rules (it's not the same subject nor all possible variations of a particular class of object). --Ivar (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read the rules carefully and I believe it is. The 'same subject' does not mean the same individual insect. And there are only two variations of how this insect rests. It qualifies under either type 3 or type 4. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment same subject means the same specimen according to your own point of view. Or did you forget? And insect variation is not how it rests, you should know better.--Ivar (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did think that same specimen was required then, yes, but there has been an extended debate on sets since. On insect variation,what about your caterpillar sets which I think are OK? Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this catepillar nomination is not about insect variation, this is the same subject from different viewpoints, rule nr 3. --Ivar (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per set rules and Charles himself from this nomination. --Ivar (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I will have to nominate your caterpillar sets for deletion. Is that OK? Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Charles, I'm explaining again: that caterpillar nomination is the nomination of the same subject (or the same insect) from different viewpoints, rule nr 3. Your set has not the same insect. --Ivar (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain IMHO they are great photos but as I am fairly new to FP nominations I do not know about the background and previous examples for these sorts of images. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing extraordinary about this pic IMO. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question Do you have the wrong nomination? These are two pics, both extraordinary. I guess we need to clearly agree on the rules for sets. I think when it's obviously two different individuals, it doesn't look like a set. These two individuals look similar enough that I could think they were the same. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek: it's clear, that this set has different individuals and Charles doesn't deny it. For example compare the yellow dots on the back. --Ivar (talk) 07:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just looked through the rules for set nominations. The relevant one appears to be "A group of images depicting the same subject from different viewpoints". Your point is that this is not the same subject. That's a question of interpretation because depending on how one interprets "subject", it could mean individual or species (a species because a subject for a photograph, rather than literally the subject of a photograph, if that makes any sense), and we should establish consistency in how we interpret that if we have not already. But Charlesjsharp, why not nominate both images separately? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek: you did agreed already, that a subject is an individual specimen. If we do not agree on that, then the subject could be species, family, order and so on. The result is endless combination, that's why it has to be one individual specimen. --Ivar (talk) 10:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I wrote "we should establish consistency," I didn't mean you and me; I meant all of us. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I agree Ikan Kekek, but not worth fighting here. Have nominated the two images as one composite. I believe the EV is greater this way. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Speyerbachbrücke IMG 4298.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2022 at 16:52:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Germany
Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much elements distracting the main composition, hole foreground --Wilfredor (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per Wilfredor, but I still like the scene. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good composition to me, though the picture isn't huge. Is there some purple CA on the branches on the upper right? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Certainly a nice scene, no doubt, and good light, but unfortunate composition IMHO. Assuming (from the title) the bridge to be the main subject, why is it squeezed into the left half of the frame and even cut off? Shouldn’t the main subject be entirely visible at least? The numerous foreground twigs are disturbing. Maybe a viewpoint at the rightmost pillar on the other side of the stream would have given a better composition. This is too unclear for me, I just don’t get the message what the author is trying to draw my attention to. Then, its soft. Very soft. In 2022, I’d expect an image of just 12 megapixels of a still object in good lighting to be crisp sharp and top detailed, and honestly, the 5D Mark II should be capable of that. --Kreuz schnabel 07:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination. --Fischer.H (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Buddha Sculpture In Kritipur-9750.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2022 at 09:38:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Sculptures outdoors
Info created by Bijay Chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay Chaurasia - nominated by Bijay Chaurasia -- Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 09:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 09:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Beautiful sculpture and a good photo of the sculpture. What's the rectangular object up high on the left? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The light switch high up on the left is a little too prominent. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMHO this photo shows rather a sculpture than architecture, therefore I have changed the gallery link. --Aristeas (talk) 09:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bijay Chaurasia: It should be easy to clone out that light switch from the background. I can do it for you if you want – just ping me. --Aristeas (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aristeas: , @Ikan Kekek: , @SHB2000: I have uploaded new version with some correction as Ikan and Aristeas suggested, Please have a look, Thank you -- Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support We'll see what other people think: It's possible to nitpick about the upper reaches of the statue maybe not being pinpoint sharp or just slightly grainy, but it's unclear to me how much of that is the stone itself, and the main point to me is that this composition is peaceful, the sensation a statue of the Buddha should produce. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. The top seems a little grainy, but this is certainly also due to the structure of the stone (cf. the lower part). --Aristeas (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried viewing this image on my phone this morning and it was still very obvious. Not so much on my computer, but FPs need to be impeccable, so my opinion stands the same. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question SHB2000, what was still very obvious? Just asking because I really do not understand. At least I do not see the light switch anymore you referred to in your first comment. --Aristeas (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Zoom in (if you're on desktop) to the left and you'll see a very noticeable black panel. SHB2000 (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, now I know what we are talking about. I would not call it very noticeable – it’s almost invisible on my (calibrated) monitor. But if it irritates you, you oppose rightly, of course. --Aristeas (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Technical issues noted above, and really rather unexceptional to me. The lit area at the bottom is distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel Case. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While it’s not bad, it’s not a great composition either, and rather noisy. --Kreuz schnabel 06:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Château Frontenac in Quebec city, Canada.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2022 at 11:21:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Canada
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 11:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice black-and-white – I like the mysterious atmosphere and the composition of the image a lot! Here are two ideas for improvement: (1) please consider removing the halo around the edges of the building, and (2) the snow at the bottom of the wall should be white, not grey. All the best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I liked the color photo of this motif. I don't remember whether the composition is much different. Would you consider offering it as an alt? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

alt colorfull[edit]

Per Ikan Kekek comment. Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice subdued atmosphere. – In the colour version there is a little halo around the top needle of the topmost roof; could you remove/reduce it, Wilfredor? Thank you! --Aristeas (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aristeas I cant see it, please add a note. --Wilfredor (talk) 10:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfredor, I can’t see it anymore, too. Sorry for the confusion! Somehow the Mediawiki software did show me the old (first) version of the colour photo. Now in the 2nd version the halo is gone. --Aristeas (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like to see the colors. It's quite pleasing to my eyes in general. There may be a place for slight perspective correction though. I don't think the halo is too strong. --Ximonic (talk) 11:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful winter atmosphere with appropriate colours. The perspective with the retaining walls in foreground emphasizes how brave it was to build the Château on that hill. --Aristeas (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is the middle of spring when that picture was taken --Wilfredor (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, right. Well, this shows nicely how much our visual habits are shaped by our experience ;–). The photo immediately evokes a winter day for me, because where I live this would be a respectable winter day (we almost never have more snow here). --Aristeas (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who comes from a Caribbean island (Margarita Island) I understand you very well, 30 C was the constant without variation throughout the year. Here for more than half of the year there is always snow and very harsh temperatures. The heat and the sun favor a lot to go out to take pictures at any time. Thank you for your comment. --Wilfredor (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Supporting for the nice detail, definitely with colors Poco a poco (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support 23:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Subdued color is the perfect mood for this scene. Daniel Case (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel Case. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much rather dull wall and not enough more interesting Chateau. --GRDN711 (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Château Frontenac in Quebec city, Canada colorfull.jpg

File:Krajina s kvetmi - Zolo Palugyay.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2022 at 09:51:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Exteriors#Landscapes
Info created by Zoltán Palugyay - uploaded by Spanish Castle Magic - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 09:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 09:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice painting. How clear is the signature in the flesh? That's the only question I have that would answer how sharp the reproduction is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's a nice painting, but the signature in the bottom right bothers me. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Don't know which version has the truer colours.THis one or the one on Alamy. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ezarateesteban 22:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Exteriors#Landscapes

File:Favartia salmonea 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2022 at 05:44:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Shells#Family : Muricidae
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 05:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 06:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 08:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 09:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support A beautiful shell. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I suggest to consider upgrading your gear, because these amazing shell macro images tend to be too soft. --Ivar (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed very beautiful. --SHB2000 (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 11:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Giant Trevally, Christmas Island.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2022 at 04:24:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Australia
Info created by ChrisBrayPhotography - uploaded by ChrisBrayPhotography - nominated by SHB2000 --SHB2000 (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator --SHB2000 (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These are large fish, but the small silhouettes don't do them justice. The island is not sharp. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the combo of image over and below water, but I don't find those fishes so extraordinary Poco a poco (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles and Poco. I would have been likely to support if the photo had been sharper, though I think a bit more sky would be good. Minor point, but is that a dust spot on the upper right? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would love to feature an over/under image, but due to its technical shortcomings and pedestrian scenery this is not going to be it. Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I personally like the contrast. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 11:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Massif du Mont-Blanc from Lac de Joux Plane 03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2022 at 09:52:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France#Haute-Savoie
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Shame about the scare wire.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems a bit too blue for me but might be real.--Ermell (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Who can say no to Mont-Blanc? --SHB2000 (talk) 01:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support like Ermell. --Aristeas (talk) 05:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Snow in summer -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support The contrast between forest and mountain is amazing. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stepro (talk) 11:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support -- The powerline immediately caught my eye, and it's really the only thing that is a drawback in the scene. But I don't think it negates it to the point of a oppose, as it is a truly beautiful scene. Sea Cow (talk) 03:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 16:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 12:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Paul Nadar - Henri Becquerel.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2022 at 09:53:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Men
Info created by Paul Nadar - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support From the link to the original photo, I feel like it has to be pretty small, and it's a striking portrait. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: Not sure if this is including the mount, but Gallica gives it as 14.5 x 10.5 cm, which is about 5.7 x 4.1 inches, and puts this in the ballpark of 580-750 dpi (depending on if the mount's included in the measurement). Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 05:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice restoration. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Urban Versis 32. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 12:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People/Portrait#Men

File:2022-07-03 Basketball, Männer, European Qualifiers, Deutschland - Polen 1DX 1281 by Stepro.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2022 at 12:39:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Other team sports
Info Basketball, Men, European Qualifiers, Germany - Poland, from left: Jonas Wohlfarth-Bottermann (GER, 18), Aleksander Balcerowski (POL, 2) at Tip Off. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Stepro (talk) 12:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Stepro (talk) 12:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like the high-quality image. --SHB2000 (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's quite a tattoo and could be said to distract from the rest of the scene, but I think it's fine. Good shot, good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the heavy crop of the players' bodies. It takes your eye to the crowd. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan Kekek --Sandro Halank (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, the crop is heavy, but at this moment all action and thrill is in the triangle between the heads and arms of the two men and the ball, and this triangle is well-framed here and gives an interesting composition. --Aristeas (talk) 07:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per other supporters. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gildir (talk) 10:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems to be too bright, and per Charlesjsharp. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support But I wonder if we could crop out the empty left (see note). Daniel Case (talk) 05:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: Thanks for the tip. I tested the square cutout in Lightroom, and I think that the effect Charlesjsharp mentioned would really occur: the audience in the background would be more noticeable than it is now. Stepro (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Urban. Nice moment captured, and faces are impressive. But then, the brightness bothers me as well, it looks overexposed altogether. Not sold on the crop either. --Kreuz schnabel 06:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Owlfly (Libelloides macaronius) female Istria composite.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2022 at 08:30:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family : Myrmeleontidae (Antlions and Owlflies)
Info This aerial predator looks a bit like a dragonfly with its net wings wings open and like a moth with its wings closed. The clubbed antennae are the give-away. Both images focus-stacked. No owlfly FPs. All by Charlesjsharp
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why a composite instead of two photos? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

individual version

Oppose composite nomination is not possible with individual image. This nomination is not valid. --Ivar (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Info At Ikan Kekek's suggestion, I offer this single image as an alternative nomination. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This nomination is not valid. --Ivar (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I'll start again! Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Annunciation - Jan van Eyck - 1434 - NG Wash DC.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2022 at 00:11:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Religion#Christianity
Info created by Jan van Eyck - uploaded by Shakko - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support A church is an anachronistic place for the Annunciation to have taken place. :-) But seriously, great painting and great high-res reproduction. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support great --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 07:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this the full picture? The crop at the sides (especially at the right) is very tight. --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good question. Our other reproductions do not show more, and IMHO there is something like a border/frame/edge of the panel visible around the motif in this reproduction, even at the right, so I guess it’s actually the complete painting. Seems van Eyck was open to daring crops ;–). Or the painting has been cropped sometimes in its history – such strange things happen –, but even then the reproduction would show all which is visible today. --Aristeas (talk) 09:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to Annunciation (van Eyck, Washington), this painting is the left wing of a triptych, but other panels that probably had a narrative related to this painting have not been found so far. -- IamMM (talk) 10:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you for the hint! --Aristeas (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ermell (talk) 08:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 10:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 07:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 01:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pencari batu kali.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2022 at 19:25:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People at work
Info created & uploaded by Imadedana - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Striking image, but the lower woman could be sharper, so this might be more of a QI/VI than a candidate for one of the greatest photos on the site; I'll think about it. That said, though, why are they gathering these river stones? Regardless of what happens in this nomination, an explanation of that would improve the usefulness of the file. User:Imadedana, if you're still seeing pings here, consider adding that explanation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking. Acceptable DoF in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as Basile. The photographer wanted to separate the subject nicely from the background (and to keep the noise low), hence opted for f/5, but this also made it impossible to get both women perfectly sharp. The focus is more on the upper woman and this is OK because she is the active one. All in all a good choice, IMHO. --Aristeas (talk) 09:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per others above. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stepro (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 01:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#People at work

File:Seattle (WA, USA), Museum of Pop Culture, Fassade -- 2022 -- 1588.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2022 at 19:21:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Other
Info created & uploaded by XRay - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good colours, beautiful light, looks quite 3-dimensional to me. A nice exemplary pars pro toto for the complete building. --Aristeas (talk) 05:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are dust spots: on top, on bottom right. --A.Savin 16:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I'll remove the dust spots tomorrow. --XRay 💬 16:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Dust spots removed. Thank you for your hint. --XRay 💬 04:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Aristeas. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thank you to Tomer T for nominating. --XRay 💬 04:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 08:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting, organic looking structure. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The more I look at it, the more I like it. There is a lot to discover in this picture! --Kritzolina (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 01:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Architectural elements#Other

File:Thymelicus sylvestris (female) - Kulna.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2022 at 18:40:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Hesperiidae_(Skippers)
Info all by Ivar (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Detail of the eye is great, but how come so many of the hairs are out of focus with 101 images? Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please add a note, where are they oof? I remind you, that small skipper has average body length 12–15 mm. --Ivar (talk) 06:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I marked the worst blurred hairs and a stacking error area, but there are several others. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment those ca 1 mm long hair are not oof, they were in the shade and the background is more hair. This is the best sharpness I could get with my old camera. As for small stacking error, it's fixed. --Ivar (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which stacking error you fixed. The one I can still see is the leg in the background where I have put the note box back. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment did you empty the cache memory? --Ivar (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I forgot, sorry. Leg is good now. By the way, do you use Helicon Focus Method A, B, or C as standard or test on every image? Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

imo I did not change default settings of the program. --Ivar (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Helicon Focus 8 has 3 options. I used Method B for my skipper above; the other choices weren't so good. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very detailed IMO -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like Charles, I would have expected more of the wings to be tack sharp when 101 exposures were stacked, but the result is still excellent given the tiny size of the animal and the high resolution, and because Ivar has applied only mild sharpening in post-processing. --Aristeas (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 10:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stepro (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, mainly for the parts in front of the wings (the eyes, etc.). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 04:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 01:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Hesperiidae_(Skippers)

File:Bloemknoppen van een Crocosmia. 10-07-2022. (d.j.b) 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2022 at 15:11:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family : Iridaceae
Info Flower buds of a Crocosmia 'Lucifer' (Montbretia). Focus stack of 35 photos.}}
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment imo it's overprocessed (contrast & color temperature too high). --Ivar (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Correction WB. reduction sharpness.Thanks for the review.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment imo contrast is still too high, I'm reading from the metadata: Tone Curve Name 2012 "Strong Contrast". --Ivar (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Contrast reduced.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ivar (talk) 07:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 06:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 08:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stepro (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 08:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support very sharp -- Wolf im Wald 12:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Glaciers of Scoresby Sund, Greenland (51966500298).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2022 at 19:42:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images#Europe
Info created by European Space Agency - uploaded and nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful, and of historic importance as global warming continues apace. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan.-- Radomianin (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. IMHO this is one of the most beautiful satellite image candidates we ever had here, thanks to the harmonious colour palette and the clear structures. --Aristeas (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seeing this image really saddens me but as Ikan mentioned, is of great historic importance. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:32, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Satellites always have a privileged perspective. This picture is good but not outstanding. The colors don't really look natural to me. The topic is important. Hence VI but not FP. --Milseburg (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Visually pleasing. Color palette reminds of the cover of Yes's Fragile. Daniel Case (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support though a couple of stitching lines are visible. --Ivar (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Go-Ahead Norge El 18 2260 Herefoss.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2022 at 15:52:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info created & uploaded by David Gubler – nominated by Ivar (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Ivar (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 17:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good landscape, especially the train. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Special viewpoint -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support the train makes it even more interesting. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stepro (talk) 10:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 13:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 16:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:NASA’s Webb Reveals Cosmic Cliffs, Glittering Landscape of Star Birth.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2022 at 20:12:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy#Nebulae
Info created by NASA, ESA and CSA, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk)
Support Wow, there is! This will certainly stay in history as the first of a long series of wonderful images. -- Yann (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic!--Ermell (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wouldn't it be better to nominate the lossless png-version which is in the process of becoming an FP on en-Wikipedia? The png is also the version used on most Wikipedias. There is also a tiff-version, even more exact. --Cart (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. PNG and TIFF versions are useful as archives, but for display JPEG is much better. TIFF is not "more exact". This JPEG file is created from the TIFF. PNG thumbnails have some issues. Yann (talk) 07:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should take these issues to the nominator on en-wiki. I'm only the messenger here for what's going on with this image, and we often tend to have the same version as FP across wiki-projects. --Cart (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will do. I requested a replacement. Yann (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

English WP FP candidate was the JPEG version (now reverted). All PNG replaced by JPEG. Yann (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Yann and Cart! --Aristeas (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cart JPG is better represented on the current browsers using sRGB --Wilfredor (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I take a great interest in space, especially Webb. These images are of much greater detail than most of Hubble's images. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Intriguing picture with an educative description -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 05:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 06:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per other supporters. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obviously. (I feel the need to read more about how this photo was generated from the camera data, how much is ‘real’ and how much is computative photography ;–). But that’s not important for the voting, in any case it was done very well.) --Aristeas (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cbrescia (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 08:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 04:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Anyone who votes against is a poopyhead PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 07:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. --A.Savin 11:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy#Nebulae

File:Portland Japanese Garden October 2019 005.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2022 at 03:36:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States#Oregon
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support idyllic. --Ivar (talk) 05:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 06:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ivar (and fond personal memories) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ivar. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The river is only a small portion of the photograph, it was not worth making such a long exposure, because of this the photo lacks a general sharpness. I strongly recommend the future combination of several fast shots --Wilfredor (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 16:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice, but I'd definitely go for a more panorama like aspect ratio and it would benefit from a perspective correction Poco a poco (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Aristeas (talk) 05:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Large skipper (Ochlodes sylvanus) underside Bled.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2022 at 11:45:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Hesperiidae_(Skippers)
Info About 10% larger than the small skipper. Focus tack of 15 images. One FP of underside and two of upperside. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful, elegant contrast of colours (subject vs. background). --Aristeas (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done and I like the scene -- Wolf im Wald 13:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 16:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 07:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Hesperiidae_(Skippers)

File:Owlfly (Libelloides macaronius) female Istria.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2022 at 11:32:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family : Myrmeleontidae (Antlions and Owlflies)
Info Image is focus-stacked. No owlfly FPs. All by Charlesjsharp-- Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 04:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods#Family : Myrmeleontidae (Antlions and Owlflies)

File:Portrait of astronaut Tom Marshburn wearing EMU.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2022 at 10:42:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Space_exploration#Astronauts
Info created by NASA/Josh Valcarcel – Johnson Space Center - uploaded by Gildir - nominated by Gildir -- Gildir (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gildir (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Certainly interesting, but I don't love the left crop. Likely to be a useful VI if nothing else. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Certainly interesting, useful and high quality, but not that outstanding. --Kreuz schnabel 06:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Interesting, but that left crop also bothers me. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose I have no problems with the composition and I love the lighting, but grayscale can't hide the noise in this image. Daniel Case (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anémona de mar (Heteractis crispa), parque nacional Ras Muhammad, Egipto, 2022-03-29, DD 43.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2022 at 20:58:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class_:_Anthozoa
Info sebae anemone (Heteractis crispa) hosting a tiny Red Sea clownfish (Amphiprion bicinctus), Ras Muhammad National Park, Egypt. The sebae anemone is widespread throughout the tropical and subtropical waters of the Indo-Pacific area from the eastern coasts of Africa, Red Sea included, to Polynesia and from south Japan to Australia and New-Caledonia. The sebae anemone is characterized by a flared oral disc which reaches between 20 and 50 cm in diameter and with multiple and long tentacles measuring 10 centimetres (3.9 in) to 15 centimetres (5.9 in) cm. The sebae anemone has two ways to feed. The first one is through the inside via photosynthesis of its symbiotic hosts zooxanthellae, living in its tissues. And the second one is through a normal way by capturing its preys via its tentacles that allow it to immobilize its prey (small invertebrates, fry, or juvenile fish). Its reproduction can be sexual by simultaneous transmission of male and female in the water or asexual by scissiparity. Note: we have no FPs of the whole family Stichodactylidae. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice little clown fish. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The background is a little distracting. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will narrow the crop a little bit. Give me 6 hours Poco a poco (talk) 06:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- IamMM (talk) 04:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment shadows are green! --Ivar (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, easy fix, will also darken the image a little bit, let me go for 2 dives now and I fix it in a couple of hours ;) Poco a poco (talk) 06:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlesjsharp, Urban Versis 32, IamMM, Ikan Kekek, and Iifar: As promised I uploaded a new version to fix the greenish shadows and also reduced the brightness a bit, I have also applied a tighter crop so that the disturbing elements in the background don't disturbe so much. Thank you for your feedback to improve the candidate! Poco a poco (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not approve of these crops. They removed some of the elements that help the eyes circle around the anemones, and you also cropped a tentacle on the left. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough, Ikan Kekek, I oversaw that cropped tentacle, I hope it's acceptable now. FYI, too, Urban Versis 32 Poco a poco (talk) 22:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, it's much easier to look at -- it provides not too much to distract the eye, but just enough to convey the scene. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can still support this version, but I also still prefer the version of 10 June 2022, which is brighter. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek to be honest, as announced above, I addressed the brightness because even if it make look nicer it was not realistic to the lighting conditions you find down there. If you don't mind I'd like to keep it as it is to make this image more useful for WP projects Poco a poco (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support per Urban Versis. Daniel Case (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment better, but shadows still have cyan cast (clearly visible in thumbnail). --Ivar (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Ivar, new version uploaded, good enough now? if not, would you mind to add a note? Poco a poco (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment notes added. --Ivar (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ivar I've only seen one note but I probably addressed both in the new version. I've to say that areas away from the anemone are peripheral in my eyes and shouldn't play a big role here, but ok, I fixed that. Poco a poco (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ivar (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aristeas (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals#Class_:_Anthozoa

File:Ibex-on-Hyundai-with-Tritram'sGrackle.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2022 at 20:23:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Nubian ibex on Hyundai I20 with Tristram's grackle at Ein Gedi, Israel

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by JulianAlper - uploaded by JulianAlper - nominated by JulianAlper -- JulianAlper (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JulianAlper (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting, possibly, but low technical quality. This could struggle at QI. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting. --SHB2000 (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. At least the purple chromatic aberration needs to be corrected. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles – sure it’s funny but quality is mediocre (if not less), some parts are overexposed (blown), nothing is really sharp at just 8 megapixels, and I see nothing outstanding in composition or photographic skills. So, while it might be interesting, it’s not a masterpiece IMHO. --Kreuz schnabel 06:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles – --GRDN711 (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good snapshot, but not an excellent picture. --Fischer.H (talk) 09:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuzschnabel. Daniel Case (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles, Kreuzschnabel and Fischer.H. -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Morena pimienta (Gymnothorax griseus), parque nacional Ras Muhammad, Egipto, 2022-03-27, DD 185.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2022 at 20:56:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family_:_Muraenidae_(Moray_Eels)
Info Full body view of a geometric moray (Gymnothorax griseus) shot during a night dive in Ras Muhammad National Park, Red Sea, Egypt. This moray eel belongs to the family Muraenidae and is found throughout the western Indian Ocean and Red Sea at depths to 40 metres (130 ft). Its length is up to 65 centimetres (26 in). Note: we have no FPs of this moray species. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Normally we only see the heads of morays. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the case in 99% of the cases, will also nominate a giant moray with full body view swimming somewhen Poco a poco (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Charlesjsharp. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Size is a little lacking, but difficulty of shot (shyness of morays and general difficulty of underwater shots) make up for it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 04:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think I've ever seen this much of a moray. How far down is this and how big was the flash? It was quite effective. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've only seen this species indeed once and it was approx 20 m deep. I use no flash under water, just continuous lighting (see here) of 13.000 lumens. Poco a poco (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 06:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question The more I look at this Poco a poco, the more I like the shape of the ray's coils. A 27 deg rotation with a 2:3 crop would make it even more compelling. 'Horizon' under water is meaningless, so it wouldn't be cheating. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Charlesjsharp, I uploaded a new version, I like it, indeed. Is it the way you mean? Poco a poco (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, Much better. Charlesjsharp (talk)

@Urban Versis 32, Adam Cuerden, IamMM, Ikan Kekek, Bruce1ee, Ermell, and Agnes Monkelbaan: FYI there is a new version, I hope you like it, too. Poco a poco (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Terrific! Looking at the rotation now, it's much easier to process in the mind. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you turned it. Fine with me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it is better rotated. —Bruce1ee^talk 21:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Famberhorst (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive. --Aristeas (talk) 08:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 16:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Fish#Family_:_Muraenidae_(Moray_Eels)

File:Chapa de acreditación Nro. 176 (Boris Krakover) Anverso.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2022 at 04:40:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the gallery here>]]
Info created by Gustavo Krakover - uploaded by Gustavo Krakover - nominated by Enlazador de mundos -- Enlazador de mundos (talk) 04:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Enlazador de mundos (talk) 04:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: It is much smaller than the absolute minimum of 2 megapixels and not even very sharp or well lit, either. Try Com:Photography critiques or COM:QIC, but don't nominate this at QIC, as the same minimum size is required there. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Poster for Burnand and Sullivan's Cox and Box - Royal Gallery of Illustration.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2022 at 00:14:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Entertainment#Music_and_Opera
Info created by Alfred Concanen - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info Do let me know if there's any damage I missed. Been staring at this for ages, keep finding some very minor additions to fix. Not helped with needing to keep it balanced with a En-wiki copy until the Moved-to-Commons deletion goes through. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good enough for me. The condition before restoration was already good, though darker. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Funny. --Aristeas (talk) 08:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed very funny and humorous. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Cox and Box" ... sounds very much like a veiled porn reference . Daniel Case (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Entertainment#Music_and_Opera

File:The Estonian Academy of Security Sciences - Lab.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2022 at 13:34:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created & uploaded by Lauri Veerde - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 13:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 13:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject matter of this photo doesn't seem as visually interesting as the others, especially with the man looking down (at first, I thought at his cellphone) and the woman looking at whatever he's looking down at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Ikan. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ah, I've always liked that so many of these Estonian interiors with people often look like scenes from old sci-fi movies. I like that that this one in particular shows that, yes, in the real world people do wear brightly-colored jumpsuits, not just in the James Bond movie villain's secret base in the volcano. (Though of course if you apply Star Trek reasoning here, some of these people will get killed before the episode is over). Daniel Case (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support (First time voting for one of these) I haven't seen that many indoor panoramas that look as good as this one and I really like how this captures the entire room in one apparent moment which panoramas of dynamic scenes of people often don't do, and how the people are absorbed in their work, giving everything a really grounded feel despite how this room almost almost seems like a movie set. DogsRNice (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another great 360 image. :) Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above: not that interesting visually, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Тычинки клена американского.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2022 at 18:09:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Sapindaceae
Info created and uploaded by Alexander Klepnev - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm trying to understand the areas of diffuse light near some of the hairs. Halos? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support "halos" are made by stacking program, but we could lower the perfection bar here, because the magnification level is awesome. --Ivar (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but the image doesn't look great close up, which is how you expect to look at this sort of image. Unless there are technical limitations I'm not aware of. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. You would expect viewers to look at microscope pics at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Ivar, Ikan, and Charlesjsharp. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Santa1902PuckCover.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2022 at 23:45:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Santa Claus as illustrated in Puck (magazine), v. 52, no. 1344

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Printed#Magazine_and_newspaper_illustrations_in_color
Info created by Puck [Frank Arthur Nankivell] - uploaded by Berean Hunter - nominated by PDMagazineCoverUploading -- PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see a slightly better crop. It leaves out a good bit of the cover this way - price, volume number, etc. Compare [1] Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see Adam's point but this is still FP-worthy. Daniel Case (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yes, it's a great image, so in a vacuum, I can support it as such without prejudice to Adam's points. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose per Adam Cuerden. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aus dem Darßwald zur Ostsee 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2022 at 09:40:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
Info Darß Forest, looking to the Baltic Sea. All by me -- Milseburg (talk) 09:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 09:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition and shadows. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Unfortunately, I don't see anything extraordinary about this pic. --SHB2000 (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above.--Cayambe (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Per others, but I like it IMO. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strong shadows, and the subject is not extraordinary in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gorges du Pont du Diable (63).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2022 at 09:54:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France#Haute-Savoie
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 09:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 09:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this a big river or a macro shot of something small? --Wilfredor (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, you can see a block of wood in the background, it will let you imagine the scale. Tournasol7 (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support interesting place. --Ivar (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 06:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the photo, but could it be a bit sharper, or would sharpening a bit make things worse? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sharpened version

Info After Ikan Kekek comment, I made this image a bit sharper. It's better? Tournasol7 (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sharpened version is much better than the original. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Still not tack sharp, but I think this is an FP. Thanks for offering this alt. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Water is noisy. And frankly the image doesn't wow me. Daniel Case (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like it, but it does need some noise reduction. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC))[reply]

File:PuckMagazine13Oct1909.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2022 at 06:03:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"Friends, farewell!" / Frank A. Nankivell.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Printed#Magazine_and_newspaper_illustrations_in_color
Info created by Puck [Frank Arthur Nankivell] - uploaded by PDMagazineCoverUploading [cropped; original uploaded by Fæ in 2018] - nominated by PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 06:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info Cropped slightly to eliminate the image background.
Support -- Don't you just love staring at the weird things that Frank drew on this cover? PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 06:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Slanted, though I guess that's just how it looks? But could you crop the entirety of the stamped date on top? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Cropped! PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks. That's a big improvement. I'm thinking that for FP, there should be more explanation in the file description than there is. For example, what does Lost Lenore - Poe have to do with Peary's expedition? Who's the Man with the Iron Mask? And how does "Honest Graft" and so forth relate to this event? Ideally, everything that could possibly need explanation should be explained. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: It's kind of in the caption: "The North Pole leaves the ranks of the undiscovered". Everything else is things unfound or unfindable (or buying into a stupid conspiracy theory, but no-one's perfect. To whit:

South pole: Wouldn't be reached until 1911.
Fountain of Youth - famously searched for by Ponce de Leon
Lost Lenore: Reference to Edgar Allan Poe, specificially The Raven which describes the narrator's "sorrow for the lost Lenore". (Also, arguably, his poem Lenore about mourning the dead, though the exact phrase is from The Raven).
Universal Peace: World Peace has been sought for years, hasn't been achieved yet.
Captain Kidd's Treasure: Famously lost pirate treasure.
Something for nothing/Shares: Reference to expression "You can't get something for nothing" Basically, a working get-rich-quick scheme.
The Great American Novel: One of those things that's always discussed in American literary circles, never had a universally-agreed candidate
Honest graft: Using one's political power to take advantage of opportunities without corruption. Probably not possible.
Perpetual motion: The idea that a machine can be built that generates power without cost.
The Man who wrote Shakespeare: Reference to the conspiracy theory that Shakespeare's works were written by someone other than Shakespeare.
The Man in the Iron Mask: A prisoner in 18th century France forced to wear an iron mask. There's a Dumas story about him, but his actual identity is unknown. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It would be great for all of that to be spelled out so clearly in the file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added! PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support now! Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks to the explanation I now understand this as an amusing and well thought-out composition. --Aristeas (talk) 10:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The slant bothers me. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 06:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Printed#Magazine_and_newspaper_illustrations_in_color

File:Tartu asv2022-04 img22 University main building.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2022 at 12:49:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Estonia
Info Assembly Hall in the Main building of University of Tartu, all by me --A.Savin 12:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 12:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question At the bottom left of the image, the floor appears to be blurry. Is that just the photo or the actual floor? Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's too dark IMO. Except the two windows at the left, the rest seems to be plunged into darkness -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like how the image is near-symmetrical. The low brightness doesn't personally bother me so much. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The subdued light gives the photo an interesting mood which makes it IMHO more likeable than some well-lit (and boring) high-gloss prints. The empty hall seems to dream of great times which have passed away or are coming. --Aristeas (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tempered support due to the slightly noisy corners. (But I, too, second Aristeas's observation about the empty hall being a great touch. Daniel Case (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am usually not a fan of pink and pastel blue, but here they come together with and atmosphere and a surrounding that creates something special for me. Like Aristeas I feel this image captures a lot more of the historical significance of this hall and this University, then a brightly lit high-gloss image might. --Kritzolina (talk) 07:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 07:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas and Kritzolina. -- IamMM (talk) 07:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've taken a while to decide on this one, but I feel the temporary absence of the students or staff that Aristeas is feeling. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Common image, no reason for FP nomination, IHMO. -- Karelj (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose For a change I concur with Karelj. The chair arragement is good and results in a nice rythm, but the ligthing and the room are not extraordinary for me to support, sorry Alex Poco a poco (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eastern forktail (05262).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2022 at 15:09:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family_:_Coenagrionidae_(Narrow-winged_Damselflies)
Info Adult male eastern forktail damselfly (Ischnura verticalis). all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose A very well-taken picture, but unfortunately the dark lower left is too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 05:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel Case, the subject blends in with the background.
Oppose My reaction is similar to but not the same as Daniel's. I find the background distracting because it's too present, not because it blends too much with the damselfly. Did you take the photo of a dragonfly with prey that was recently nominated on QIC, or was it User:Ermell? That looked featurable to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yellow tail (Euproctis similis) female.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2022 at 14:26:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Erebidae (Erebid Moths)
Info No current FP. Focus stacked image. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very good, but the yellow tail is not visible. The eyes aren't very easy to see (I think I see one?), but that seems to be common to other photos of this species on Commons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The tail is not usually visible; nor are the eyes I'm afraid. This is how they usally rest; with eyes hidden. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The light is a little harsh and while I understand what you've said about how they rest like this, it still isn't satisfying to look at. Daniel Case (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not objecting to your oppose, but early morning light is not 'harsh'. It looks harsh because the moth is white. Charlesjsharp (talk) 23:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Daniel. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems deserving. Very sharp and pretty, and nothing is harsh to my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per others. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, strong oppose? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Edwin Forbes - The Charge across the Burnside Bridge.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2022 at 21:26:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Others#Historical
Info created by Edwin Forbes - restored (a bit), uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great restoration of an interesting image. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Urban Versis 32. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 07:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Battle paintings etc. are usually not my cup of tea, but this is an excellent drawing in excellent restauration. --Aristeas (talk) 07:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 06:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Others#Historical

File:Billy Goat Trail Cliff (from above).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2022 at 04:03:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by GeneralPoxter - uploaded by GeneralPoxter - nominated by GeneralPoxter -- GeneralPoxter (talk) 04:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- GeneralPoxter (talk) 04:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Found the composition interesting, but am unsure whether this version or a version cropped to the rule of thirds is better. GeneralPoxter (talk) 04:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh lighting, cluttered composition; lots of interesting details but not enough tying it together. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree. It's a nice snap but nothing astonishing, such that it would be an FP, and the overexposed areas of the sky could keep it from being a QI if nominated at Com:Qic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. While this snap might be special for the author personally, I can’t see anything outstanding here that would make it one of our very very best. --Kreuz schnabel 07:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination GeneralPoxter (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fire extinguishing system.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2022 at 07:42:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Industry#Estonia
Info created & uploaded by Lauri Veerde - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another great 360 photo. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support A guy with a big tank of scum. I love it. Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, but I really miss more information about the work behind the scene (amount of frames, lens, SW used, etc.), nothing is documented Poco a poco (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool ;–). (Like Poco a poco, I would welcome some technical insights.) --Aristeas (talk) 08:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 09:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Educative -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Valeriana officinalis inflorescence - Niitvälja.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2022 at 05:35:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Caprifoliaceae
Info all by Ivar (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. -- -donald- (talk) 06:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 06:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful. --Aristeas (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, although my brain asks 'Can the stem be vertical?' Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is that dew on the flower petals? Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, morning dew. --Ivar (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Special light -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 09:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Aristeas (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bled Island 06.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2022 at 15:49:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Slovenia
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not with the tree on the left I'm afraid. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can someone crop that tree per Charlesjsharp? Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wrong angle per Charles. Cropping the tree will mess up the view of the mountains. Maybe being somewhat to the right might have resulted in an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles and Ikan. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles and Ikan. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 10:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Southern Fulmar - Eaglehawk Neck.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2022 at 10:16:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family_:_Procellariidae_(Petrels)
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison – nominated by Ivar (talk) 10:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Ivar (talk) 10:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ordinary bird but nice light and good focus -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 07:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile. --Aristeas (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 09:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. Please, add the scientific name to the description. --Cayambe (talk) 09:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family_:_Procellariidae_(Petrels)

File:Eastern bath white (Pontia edusa) underside Istria.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2022 at 14:32:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Pieridae (Whites and Sulphurs)
Info No current FP. Focus stacked image. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Light and compo. But a shame the antenna has not been stacked. And the resolution could have been larger -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both would be nice. It is not easy to get the camera to focus on the antenna and the stack would need to be 100+ images which is impracticable. I find I can only carry two cameras in a meadow and I choose my 100-500mm zoom and 100mm macro. The nearest focus distance of the zoom means I cannnot fill the frame with a small butterfly. The macro is the way to fill the frame, but many species don't allow me to get to the necessary 10cm distance. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Basile --Ermell (talk) 09:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Basile. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support very Sharp -- Wolf im Wald 18:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Pieridae (Whites and Sulphurs)

File:Llyn Llygad Rheidol.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2022 at 20:25:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United Kingdom#Wales
Info created & uploaded by User:Jason.nlw - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a really pretty scene, nice and sharp (to the bottom of the lake yet!), and I like the reflections, the light and shadow and the angle formed by the border between them and the clouds. Maybe a bit more sky would have been desirable, but I thought I'd give a nomination a try, and I expect we'll have an interesting discussion even if it doesn't pass. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan, though I could do with some additional sharpening. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. (How different the tastes are: I would not add more sharpening ;–).) --Aristeas (talk) 08:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The reflection is a bit blurry and dark towards the left. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question Isn't it normal for reflections to be a bit blurry? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not always though, but it's hard to get a non-blurry reflection, so okay, I'll let that one go, but it is still very dark though. SHB2000 (talk) 08:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful oppose As is common with phone pics, the detail of the snow on the slope breaks down. In many places it looks very artificial and unnatural. Daniel Case (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So I see - yes, a cellphone pic. I hadn't even checked to see what equipment was used to take this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have checked the equipment before voting, but was rather satisfied with the results in this case – yes, the snow could be more detailed, but I have seen so many much much worse phone pics (and photos from expensive cameras which were degraded in post to look like phone pics ;–) that this one seems quite good for me, and IMHO the composition and the tranquil mood make up for it. Just my 50 cent ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 06:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Karelj (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 19:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pulpo común (Octopus vulgaris), franja marina Teno-Rasca, Tenerife, España, 2022-01-08, DD 53.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2022 at 19:26:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class_:_Cephalopoda
Info Common octopus (Octopus vulgaris), Teno-Rasca marine strip, Tenerife, Spain. This mollusc is the most studied of all octopus species. It is cosmopolitan, that is, a global species, which ranges from the eastern Atlantic, extends from the Mediterranean Sea and the southern coast of England, to the southern coast of South Africa. The common octopus hunts at dusk. Crabs, crayfish, and bivalve molluscs (two-shelled, such as cockles) are preferred, although the octopus eats almost anything it can catch. It is able to change color to blend in with its surroundings, and is able to jump upon any unwary prey that strays across its path. Using its beak, it is able to break into the shells of shelled molluscs. During the day it usually hides in holes and sleeps and it goes out during the night to hunt (like shown here in a night dive). Note: we do have several FPs of octopus, but I find this image of special good composition and acceptable quality. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very neat. I bet it was hard to spot! Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish for a somewhat more horizontal orientation, but it's sharp and a great example of its camouflaging abilities. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 08:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals#Class_:_Cephalopoda

File:Squrirels mating (10802).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2022 at 15:34:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family : Sciuridae (Squirrels)
Info created & uploaded by Rhododendrites - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support A rare sight. --A.Savin 17:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Must've been very hard to take. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nom, Tomer T. I saw three males following this female around this section of the park for a while. Ideally, the place she would've chosen when ready wouldn't have been a maintenance hole cover, but it does sort of tell a story about how well squirrels have adapted to urban environments. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's good that you used "maintenance hole" here, otherwise the too-obvious double entendres would have followed ...

Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support What a tail! :-) Enjoy -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Alex. I've watched squirrels my entire life and don't ever remember seeing them mate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 07:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better than our other squirrel p0rn. Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 04:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 08:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals#Family : Sciuridae (Squirrels)

File:Windows of Toronto Reference Library.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2022 at 20:31:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Canada
Info created & uploaded by User:Maksimsokolov - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I feel like it's been a while since we considered one of this type of nomination, and this is a nice one. I also like the fact that it's not the most usual number of windows for this kind of photo on Commons (I feel like it would usually be all of them, showing the entire facade, or three or some combination of three [like two rows of three]). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a shame about the lights and that the windows are so dirty. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charlesjsharp. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support according to Ikan's support statement. -- Radomianin (talk) 05:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. (The asymmetry of the lights adds a minimal moment of variation to the row of windows which I like very much; they even seem to form some kind of progressive series.) --Aristeas (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the asymmetry of the lights, but I have to agree with Charlesjsharp. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan and Aristeas. I also like that the lights and the dirt on the windows make it clear that this is an actual real life picture. --Kritzolina (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support May be better with clean windows. But IMO still FP. --XRay 💬 16:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Kritzolina. Daniel Case (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 07:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charlesjsharp. -- Karelj (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Charles Poco a poco (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Patterns! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Architectural elements#Windows

File:Château du Saint-Ulrich (Ribeauvillé) (2).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2022 at 06:57:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#France
Info created by Gzen92 - uploaded by Gzen92 - nominated by Gzen92 -- Gzen92 (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gzen92 (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works for me. Interesting shapes, and the angle and composition work. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition and light, shows the situation of the castle and allows at the same time to study many details of it. --Aristeas (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan and Aristeas In favor of edited version Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 15:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry to disturb: this is nice, but is it one of the most outstanding images here? For example, the light could be more interesting, there are almost no shadows. --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Uoaei1. This is a good QI but a bit too straightforward to be featured. The light is flat, colours a bit on the cold side. Good quality but not that outstanding for me. --Kreuz schnabel 21:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak oppose Everything right and OK with this but it deserves stronger light. Daniel Case (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, I think that the photo is actually quite good, what could be better is the processing (e.g. the while balance is a bit cold). It would be easy to improve this if we had a raw image file, but even on base of the JPEG file some optimizations seem possible. I have uploaded a somewhat experimental editing; it may be overdone or too weak, depending on personal taste, but would you consider this (or a similar editing) as an improvement? Maybe together we can find a solution which mitigates some of the critique and makes you re-consider the image. Just wanting to help, --Aristeas (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supplement: This editing is also based on my personal memory of that castle; it’s more than 10 years that I was there, but I remember the red sandstone walls to be quite colourful, therefore I have emphasized that colour a bit more. --Aristeas (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, seems that it doesn’t work without a ping, sorry. @Gzen92, Ikan Kekek, SHB2000, Urban Versis 32, and Milseburg: Would you also support the edited version? @Uoaei1, Kreuzschnabel, Daniel Case, and Kruusamägi: Could you please take a look at the edited version and comment whether it would mitigate your reservations about this photo or not? Thank you very much! Additional hints about how to improve the edited version further are very welcome. I am sorry for the extra work this means, but before considering to offer an edited version as an alternative some feedback would be useful. Best, --Aristeas (talk) 07:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely much more wow on the edited version. --Kreuz schnabel 07:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The edited version is much more vivid. If it's true to life, I'd support making the change. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your feedback, Kreuz, Ikan and Kruusamägi! So it seems reasonable to offer the edited photo as alternative version – please see below. I hope it is OK for you, Gzen92, that I edit your nomination and add the alternative; I just want to help a bit. --Aristeas (talk) 10:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, the picture is really better. Gzen92 (talk) 10:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

* Support --Milseburg (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC) I prefer now the new version. --Milseburg (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The image is good, but for FP, I'd expect more intriguing light conditions. Kruusamägi (talk) 07:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do like the edited version. Kruusamägi (talk) 07:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative version[edit]

Support The edited version brings out the quality of the photo better and is still true to life. --Aristeas (talk) 10:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better. Gzen92 (talk) 10:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support this version, the careful editing has helped to bring out the best of it --Kritzolina (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Looks better, but now a bit oversaturated --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much more vibrant than the orig, per Aristeas and Kritzolina. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better. Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Poco a poco (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the alternative version. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 12:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Château du Saint-Ulrich (Ribeauvillé) (2) edited (1).jpg

File:Tom Taylor by Lock and Whitfield.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2022 at 00:23:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Men
Info created by Lock and Whitfield - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice portrait and good restoration. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bis. Yann (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People/Portrait#Men

File:Uranus2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2022 at 09:23:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

This is an image of the planet Uranus taken by the spacecraft Voyager 2 in 1986.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
Info created by NASA/JPL-Caltech - uploaded by Antonsusi - nominated by The NMI User -- The NMI User (talk) 09:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The NMI User (talk) 09:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Please nominate at COM:VIC, but I think that an image of Uranus with no rings and pretty much a solid color isn't that interesting compared to other astronomical images we've been featuring, plus I imagine we'll get some much more detailed NASA photos from the new Webb Telescope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per opposers above. --Cayambe (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. I would say it was too clean to be anybody's—but we'll just stop this right there. Daniel Case (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 12:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nürnberg St. Lorenz Dreikönigsaltar, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2022 at 12:11:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

The Annunciation
The Flight into Egypt
The Massacre of the Innocents
The Nativity (already feautured, added here for completeness of the set)
The Adoration of the Magi
Total view

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Religion#Christianity

Info Altar of the Magi (Dreikönigsaltar), St. Lorenz, Nuremburg, Germany. Painted by Hans Pleydenwurff around 1460. All the rest by me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- One further note: My image of the fourth (lower left) wing panel, The Nativity, is already featured ~~, therefore it is not included in this set.~~ --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is now included for completeness of the set --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure, although I would have included a zoom of the central panel as well. --Yann (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is an incomplete set, so I don't feel I can support it. Also, what's the rule about individual photos that are already featured being included in sets? I would think they should be included when leaving them out makes the set incomplete. It seems to me, for this set to be complete, all the individual paintings need separate files, but we can discuss this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The other one has to be included, as does the cnetral panel, otherwise the set is invalid, so why not nominate the current FP for delisting? Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why would that be necessary or appropriate? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Set guidelines "Not acceptable: Arbitrary selection of sample works by an artist." Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now the full set is there. Thanks. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's moot now, but you suggested nominating the painting that was already an FP for delisting, and that's what didn't make sense to me. If you think about it, you can see how my reply couldn't have meant what you thought it meant. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Kruusamägi (talk) 07:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Excellent quality etc.! Wouldn’t it be a simple solution if you would 1) include the fourth (lower left) wing panel (regardless of that it is already FP) and 2) replace the overview image by a crop from it showing just the central panel? This way the set would be complete … at least complete enough for me to support it ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 08:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Done @Aristeas, Charlesjsharp, and Ikan Kekek: I have completed the set. --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you! --Aristeas (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the set. -- Radomianin (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is great! There's one thing you could do to make it even better: If you could add thumbnails of the photo of the entire altarpiece to all the photos of the paintings that are part of it, it would help people to understand the placement of all the paintings, and even better if the individual portions of the thumbnail are clickable to photos of each individual painting. But none of that is in any way a precondition for my vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Done --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 12:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kampen, Molenbrug. 28-02-2022. (actm.) 03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2022 at 15:11:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Netherlands
Info Kampen, Molenbrug (suspended cable-stayed bridge) over the IJssel. (southeast side)
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This could do with some additional sharpening IMO. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 15:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 15:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support May be a touch too warm. --XRay 💬 16:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. Would you like me to make the photo a little colder?--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Perfectly good QI, but a straightforward presentation and no great composition to me, and in terms of the image, the most interesting element to me is what I guess is the water level meter that looks like it measures how far the water is from the bridge. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An ordinary bridge with featureless sky in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special about this bridge. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The latticework of the cables might make something interesting if handled differently, but not in this image. Daniel Case (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too tight crop at the leftmost cable stay. Otherwise like the composition. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 08:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Talsperre Saidenbach mit Wald.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2022 at 19:07:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Saxony
Info created and uploaded by Elbacho - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 19:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, it is a photo taken with an iPhone, but it was taken using an iPhone 13 Pro Max; Apple has evolved its smartphones enough to make them capable of taking sharp photos in good light conditions. -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 19:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I do not see anything special here... and the shadow at right is very unattractive. The categorization needs to be improved. --Cayambe (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not as sharp as preferable, and we usually don't accept phone images for FP, and shadow per Cayambe. But it is a good picture. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Nice symmetry, calming scene, and decent quality for a phone pic, but it does lack something more. Too much empty blue IMO. Also, categorization is insufficient (but that's not a great reason to oppose in itself, of course). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's an interesting composition but it doesn't really work for me because the right side is so different from the rest and there's nothing to balance it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As I have said in the past, I have seen quite a few pictures of water reflections of trees in the past few years as part of my category work. This is ... OK, but there are many better ones. Daniel Case (talk) 06:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eesti Lennundusmuuseum. Hävitaja F-4C Phantom II kabiin.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2022 at 06:53:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport#Military jet aircraft
Info created & uploaded by Lauri Veerde - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. Are there more? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 07:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. As a big F-4 Phantom fan who has seen thousands of photos of this aircraft, I have never seen such a sharp and informative view of the cockpit before. -- IamMM (talk) 07:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per IamMM. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Amazing 360° immersion -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very effective. @Veerdelauri: Would you share what equipment you use to make these? I see the EXIF is missing, so I can't tell if it's a 360 camera or stitching. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One can safely assume this is not a 360° cam which would surely shows with many stitching errors / seams, and a weird pattern where the void / stick is. - Benh (talk) 08:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He has previosly told, that he uses Sony A7R III, Canon 8-15mm f/4 fisheye lens & Nodal Ninja panoramic head. He usually shoots at 13mm in 6 directions + one down. Standard is 3 images in each position (+-2 EV) and so in total one panorama image consists of 21 photos. For post-processing he uses Lightroom, Ptgui, SNS-HDR, Photmatix, Aurora HDR, Photoshop, Topaz Labs plug-in’s or whatever is needed. Kruusamägi (talk) 11:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the insights, Kruusamägi! --Aristeas (talk) 05:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support So cool! — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support very skillful shooting and stitching and amazing to look at - Benh (talk) 08:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support finally took a look Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mosbatho (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 12:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Great golden digger wasp (31760).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2022 at 01:43:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera#Family_:_Sphecidae_(Thread-waisted_wasps)
Info Great golden digger wasp (Sphex ichneumoneus). I first came across this wasp when Douglas Hofstadter wrote about it years ago to talk about "programmed"/determined behavior (see sphexish on Wiktionary). Doesn't really mean anything as far as this photo goes, but I was glad to "put a face to the name". :) all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd love to see more of the flower on the left, but the main point is that the wasp is very well captured and beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very crisp and clear. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 10:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per SHB2000. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice detail -- Wolf im Wald 18:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera#Family_:_Sphecidae_(Thread-waisted_wasps)

File:Three giraffes 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2022 at 20:53:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family : Giraffidae (Giraffes)
Info created and uploaded by Byrdyak - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very detailed, and subjects stand out from background. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very nice find, IamMM. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I nominated it at QIC last year. Striking picture and good quality -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. Maybe the light is a bit boring (no shadows), but it works well with this composition. --Aristeas (talk) 04:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 07:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 07:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per other supporters. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support POTY candidate. Tomer T (talk) 10:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cbrescia (talk) 10:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - well done. --GRDN711 (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 14:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 18:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support giraffe-piling on — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like how the giraffes stand out. – The man from Gianyar (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Finalist of POTY 2022. If POTY22 happens at all... — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 08:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 30 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge East Pond (61289p).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2022 at 13:29:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/United States#New York
Info This pond in the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge (Queens, NY) was created by NYC urban planner Robert Moses in 1951. The water level is manipulated throughout the year to create ideal mud flats for birds. It's one of my favorite spots, but it requires walking through the mud and pushing through some reeds. This spot is the southernmost tip on a bright (very hot) day as storm clouds are rolling in. I'm always attracted to bright light with dark clouds, and like the contrast between the bright, colorful algae/plantlife and the sky and its reflection. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support However, there's a slight slant on the image. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good. Would be even better with tilt correction and a tiny bit of cropping at bottom (also because of the unsharp left corner). --A.Savin 14:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. @A.Savin and Urban Versis 32: I've uploaded a new version. Let me know if that addresses what you meant? Also, regarding the gallery, I had chosen "other" rather than "natural" because it's a human-made (and controlled) pond (complete with a measuring device there in the middle). Still not sure which one makes more sense. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - That looks much better. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 15:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks Rhododendrites for the obvious improvement. Regarding the gallery choice: man-made or not, it's still a natural object in a natural environment (imho). Regards --A.Savin 16:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support blurred in the bottom left corner but I like the scenery -- Wolf im Wald 18:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The atmosphere turns an otherwise flat landscape into an impressive scene. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King of Hearts. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Special light -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amusing to describe Moses as an "urban planner" ... it's certainly true, but he was a lot more than that. Daniel Case (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More like an urban destroyer and racist, but people can read the Wikipedia article about him in Wikipedia and judge for themselves. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mosbatho (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/United States#New York

File:Landscape Arch Utah.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2022 at 19:01:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United_States#Utah
Info 127 megapixel stitching of Landscape Arch at Arches National Park, Utah, United States. All by me. -- Wolf im Wald 19:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 19:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great view; incredibly sharp image. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unusual lines -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Really impressive, but shouldn't the water lines on the rock be vertical? Perhaps technically impossible to do perspective correction? Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's very natural the way it is because I shot from the bottom up. It would look unnatural if the lines were completely vertical. It's also not a building where the lines have to be perfectly vertical. Besides some sharpness would be lost if I do a perspective correction after stitching procedure. Regards -- Wolf im Wald 18:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'll believe you... Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ivar (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive. – The man from Gianyar (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This gives me good memories when I was in Arches NP three years ago :-). Nicely taken. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I wonder what we could do about the slight sharpening halo on the bottom of the arch ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Masked Lapwing - Pitt Town Lagoon.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2022 at 14:23:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus_:_Vanellus
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison – nominated by Ivar (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Ivar (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bird in the background doesn't work for me and the white neckfeathers lack definition. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 07:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charlesjsharp. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Charles. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles; it really does feel like you're seeing double. Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Ivar (talk) 09:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]