Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/June 2018

File:Paris, Eiffelturm -- 2014 -- 1272.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2018 at 13:32:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created & uploaded by XRay - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shiny. :) I love the DoF here.--Peulle (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Peulle, you beat me to it! So I will just say, instead: oooh, Steampunk! Daniel Case (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice finding --Poc o² 11:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tozina (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks to Tomer T for nominating and thanks to all the reviewers. --XRay ^talk 04:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice idea. --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm a little bugged by the bottom crop, I would've liked the whole last cylinder in frame, but that's minor. --Cart (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Pycnonotus goiavier analis.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2018 at 00:43:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info created by GerifalteDelSabana - uploaded by GerifalteDelSabana - nominated by GerifalteDelSabana -- GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not sharp enough for an FP bird photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan. And the frame is too large -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan.--Peulle (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eurasian tree sparrow 2 cropped.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2018 at 06:05:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info created by GerifalteDelSabana - uploaded by GerifalteDelSabana - nominated by GerifalteDelSabana -- GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 06:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 06:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Based on my experiences with sparrows here in New York, I would say this is a male. It's a pretty good photo, IMO, but the level of sharpness is not as great as the brilliant closeups of small birds we've seen repeatedly at FPC, and this is a common bird, so I think a particularly outstanding photo would be needed for an FP of it. A more interesting background or nicer perch might be desired, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. And yes, it is a male.--Peulle (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 01:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tectarius pagodus 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2018 at 06:02:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 06:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 06:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's a great shell. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Customed Llez HQ level --Poc o² 12:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P999 (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tozina (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on support Daniel Case (talk) 01:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2018 at 14:54:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info The Wittelsbacher foutain is a monumental fountain at the north border of Munich downtown (Germany). The fountain was built between 1893 and 1895 following drawings of the sculptor Adolf von Hildebrand. The subject of the 25-long-basin is the forces of the water element with the allegory of the destruction on the left hand and of the blessing force on the right. Note: this is the second nom of this image after some feedback I got in the first nom. Poc o² 14:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 14:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! --Basotxerri (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! --Podzemnik (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now because of quality issues. The strange countours of the sculptures (most visible at the horse) need to be fixed. --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

* Yes there is a halo on the horse's chest Diego. Otherwise very nice (apart from the fag ends!) Charles (talk) 09:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uoaei1, Charles: fixed --Poc o² 17:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Better, but not completely fixed. There are still some halos at the horse's neck and at the side of the horse rider. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uoaei1: I uploaded a last version, please, have a look. --Poc o² 19:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks, I knew that you can manage it! --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --XRay ^talk 15:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charles (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P999 (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Disturbing beer bottle :-)--Ermell (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ermell, what do you mean? :) --Poc o² 19:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The full or empty bottle on the left close to the horse. Is not meant seriously :-)--Ermell (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ermell: shit, I got rid of the one below the horse head :( --Poc o² 20:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Detached without a trace. Bravo.--Ermell (talk) 05:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ivar (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Where is the bottle gone? I liked it. --Llez (talk) 11:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Young boy smiling, holding a fighting rooster in Laos.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2018 at 10:13:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Standing_people
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very nice human interest shot.--Peulle (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Peulle, ~~but please sign your edit~~ -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose He has a compelling smile but the background is just a little too complex for that smile to carry the day. Daniel Case (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support for both the boy and the rooster. What is protruding from the rooster's body with the "DANGER" sign on it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a laser light, which makes kind of red spots at long distances, sometimes used by teachers on their board. And pretty sure this is not attached to the rooster but hold in the boy's hand -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thanks all for the reviews -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 08:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Larry the cat standing on gravel and gently pulling on a wool string in Auderghem, Belgium (DSCF2328).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2018 at 10:41:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family_:_Felidae_(Felids)
Info created by Trougnouf - uploaded by Trougnouf - nominated by Trougnouf -- Trougnouf (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Trougnouf (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That's way too dark, imho. Don't really dig the composition either: It would make much more sense to me if all that empty space on the left was on the right instead (en:Lead room). Could maybe work with a much tighter crop in portrait orintation?--El Grafo (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course. I made it much brighter and posted an alternative portrait crop. --Trougnouf (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The entire left-hand portion of the composition is unnecessary, per El Grafo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative (portrait crop)[edit]

Info Alternative portrait crop as per El Grafo's request. --Trougnouf (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Trougnouf (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That is one fat cat! But cute. This composition is fun. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. And I also like its face expression. Undecided. Between staying here staging for the picture, or let it go with the heavy body -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quality not there, nor composition. Charles (talk) 11:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Irresistible. Daniel Case (talk) 04:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P999 (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even though I'm a cat lover, I don't find this striking. It lacks composition and the quality could be better. Sorry. --Cart (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunate background --Llez (talk) 10:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why is a door a bad background for a pet cat? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Unremarkable. We have hundreds of photos of house cats and this one doesn't seem to have any special qualities or outstanding characteristics. The primary criteria for featured picture is value and I don't see this photo having a lot of value for the projects. Kaldari (talk) 02:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It shows the cat behavior of pulling on a string, which could easily be used in an article on cat behavior. If you find the subject and composition unremarkable, those are perfectly reasonable reasons to oppose, but being sure a photo couldn't be used in an online article (and I remind you that neither is this VIC where value is the be-all and end-all nor is Commons solely for the use of Wiki sites) IMO shows a lack of imagination. We've repeatedly seen examples of photos that were claimed by someone not to be encyclopedic and were subsequently used appropriately in Wikipedia articles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gutweed at high tide and low tide, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2018 at 21:06:16 (UTC)

At high tide
At low tide

Info Category Commons:Featured pictures/Other lifeforms#Algae. Unlike plants on land, things growing in the sea are in constant motion, especially algae that grow in the tidal zone with waves lapping. To get a short enough exposure time without a too high ISO, a tradeoff with DoF had to be done even if this was shot on one of the sunniest days in years. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question I quite like the second picture but not at all the first one on the left. Is it possible to split our votes ? :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not in a vote for a set, but I tend to feel similarly. I think that if these two photos are made into a single composite photo, that could be a good VI (VIC doesn't accept sets anymore because of some technical problem). I'd consider supporting the second photo for FP, but probably not the first. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm a little surprised by this. Normally voters tend to want plants to be at their best, looking as good and natural as possible. In this case that would be the left photo, I thought it would be the right one that would have a hard time. But if it is the general feeling, sure, I can withdraw this and submit just the right-hand one. That would also leave me free to later submit a photo of the high tide version that I think is better, just not as an identify species photo. --Cart (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I actually like the lefthand one more ... the other one has some sections of the plant that seem posterized. Daniel Case (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, the parts of the algae that are not filled with the produced oxygen are thin as film, so a couple of layers of them, as there is in some places, creates a very homogenous patch that looks like a posterized part. That's what's happening. Not the easiest growing thing to deal with though. Anyway, it might be better to do these one by one. --Cart (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Let's try them one by one instead. --Cart (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:ET Gondar asv2018-02 img42 Debre Berhan Selassie.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2018 at 13:22:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Frescoed wooden ceiling of the Church of Debre Berhan Selassie (Trinity Church on Hill) in Gondar, Ethiopia -- all by A.Savin --A.Savin 13:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 13:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 05:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 06:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Río Matanuska, Palmer, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-22, DD 55-59 PAN.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2018 at 19:29:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Panoramic view of the Matanuska River near Palmer, Alaska, United States. Poc o² 19:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Ikan Kekek, Target360YT, and Daniel Case: I decided to start the nom of the picture Ikan suggested in the former nom. Poc o² 19:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 19:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm not too jaded to support this attractive misty landscape. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now we're talking. ;) --Cart (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very powerful scene, the energy of that place is splashing my keyboard. --Podzemnik (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Love the colors. ^∞😃 Target360YT 😃^∞ (Talk) 02:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 05:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brings back memories ... Daniel Case (talk) 16:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus 23:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive detail! Could you add a short bit (description or category) about the stitching process? --Trougnouf (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trougnouf: Done Poc o² 20:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wood white (Leptidea sinapis) female.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2018 at 15:57:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P999 (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose - This doesn't impress me as much as your butterfly pictures normally do. It's sharp in some places, but you usually get more sharpness on the subject, overall. I also don't love the stem being stuffed on the right side, with the plant cut off on the right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 18:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much (of the edges) of the wings is out of focus. And the unpleasant plant should be cropped largely. --Hockei (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose With that light and plant, it looks too depressing for a butterfly photo. Also quality issues per Hockei. --Cart (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Aesthetically the flower is too sad. But the specimen is well identified, as usual, and sorted in acurate categories -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Waimea Canyon, Kauaʻi.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2018 at 02:53:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States
Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support :-) --XRay ^talk 05:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I quite like the differences between the shade and the illuminated areas - just a shame the weather was not more spectacular.--Peulle (talk) 07:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! --Cart (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support This canyon is gorgeous. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basotxerri -- P999 (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others: Beautiful and an excellent, very active composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I enjoy the colors Poc o² 21:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:46-212-5007 NNP Skolivski Tustan RB 18.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2018 at 15:11:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Ukraine
Info created by Rbrechko - uploaded by Rbrechko - nominated by Rbrechko -- Rbrechko (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rbrechko (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, there are too many technical quality issues.--Peulle (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wouldn't really support but I wonder what the too many technical quality issues are. Timing is good, and maybe author didn't sharpen but it's easy "fix" (if it's even considered a fault) and at 6000x4000 come on... And other than that... and I believe the flare is a feature. There are much worse FP. - Benh (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Benh: "I wouldn't really support" but I {{Support}} : what does that mean ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's necessary to remove the very inspired FPX. - Benh (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Perhaps not a FPX but clearly not a support from my side, because of the inelegant flares, the back light, and the ugly board which completely ruins the landscape. This picture reminds me this recent nomination that was still better -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very nice composition, lovely. IMO the image needs at least a perspective correction. And there are a lot of lens flares, may be dust on the lens. --XRay ^talk 06:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it was not dust on the lens. It was a high humidity and it was windy that day. As result there were many small drops of water and snowflakes (some of snowflakes are visible as short white strips) in the air. So I think that flares are result of sun rays passing through small water droplets. I like how these flares look here, so I don't want to remove them. --Rbrechko (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about the diagonal fences? I presume they don't look like that. Is that a feature? I'd like to see what this photo looks like with perspective correction. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

11-mm lens... It will be hard... I think that rocks will not fit into the frame or will be too flattened after perspective correction. Maybe I'm wrong, but in this case bent fence makes photo more dynamic. --Rbrechko (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well it looks weird to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Not sure that it is better. Alternative remake: --Rbrechko (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It feels more natural, but you lose the most dramatic gestures in the clouds and the fences on the right are cropped worse on the bottom in this version. Thanks for satisfying my curiosity, anyway; I appreciate it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No big difference with the first version in relation with my previous oppose -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aerial view of Apple Park dllu.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2018 at 08:50:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by dllu - uploaded by dllu - nominated by Dllu -- dllu (t,c) 08:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- dllu (t,c) 08:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's staggering that someone can just say "I like the idea of Pentagon, but can we build a round house instead? It's more fun." --Cart (talk) 10:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good - and I like that you got the entrance and exit of the tunnel just below. :) --Peulle (talk) 10:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 13:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Where's the new Apple headquarters building?" "I don't know, but it's around here somewhere." Daniel Case (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Damn you. You made me laugh so hard I spilled my tea. Now I have to make new tea and it's all your fault. ;-P --Peulle (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 21:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dent de Vaulion in infrared.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2018 at 11:37:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Switzerland
Info created by Lahminewski Lab - uploaded by Lahminewski Lab - nominated by Djhé -- Djhé (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Djhé (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not even close for me, I'm afraid, there are just too many issues. Tilt, disturbing grass in the foreground, noise levels despite the relatively small size ... Sorry, but it's a no.--Peulle (talk) 11:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Noice levels are always high when you deal with infrared photography. You can't treat it as normal photography. The grass is annoying though, it looks like a tear in the photo. Fixable? --Cart (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With a lawnmower, yes. I don't think it's possible in post - too much work for too little reward.--Peulle (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--Cart (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it better ? I tried to fix the problems. --Lahminewski Lab (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Infrared or not, it's not a great composition to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Desna river Vinn meadow 2016 G2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2018 at 10:35:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Ukraine
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although that should be categorized as mist, IMO, actually, not fog. Daniel Case (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question What's the difference? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: I distinguish them by fog being general all over, something that shrouds everything. Mist, by contrast, is in little patchy areas like these, near the ground, where it doesn't obscure all you can see or only in a very small area.

I think the meteorological distinction is that if visibility within is less than 5 km, it's fog; otherwise it's just mist. Daniel Case (talk) 05:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent! -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition and light work well. Alexander Leisser (talk) 09:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 06:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 21:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fokker DR1 D-EFTJ OTT2013 D7N9244 005.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2018 at 13:34:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
Info created & uploaded by Ritchyblack - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Main object is very sharp --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks good to me, too. What do you all think about the size of the photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cool shot, but to me it looks like the aim was slightly off and there has been an attempt at correcting the sharpness in post. I don't think it has succeeded; there's even CA on the cross.--Peulle (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wow is definitely presented but I think that technical quality could have been better. There are many signs of post-processing like CA on wheels, there is a visible line from the right wheel, a triangle-like thing on the left top of the lower wing there and so forth. Do you think you can try to fix that? --Podzemnik (talk) 07:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technical quality is not really FP. Don't know if it has been downsized Ikan Kekek. Charles (talk) 09:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 18:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Peulle and Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fuerteventura, El Cotillo — Cuvier's beaked whale.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2018 at 09:42:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
Info created, uploaded, nominated by Cayambe -- Cayambe (talk) 09:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Info Skeleton of a Beaked Cuvier's whale (Ziphius cavirostris) on Fuerteventura, Canary Islands. The whale was found beached here in 2004.
Support -- Cayambe (talk) 09:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good compsition --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 10:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A VI maybe, and perhaps QI (although it does seem a little oversharpened), but for me it's just too ordinary to be an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support - Not ordinary to me. Perhaps a different color in the sky might make the photo more interesting, but then again, it could detract attention from the whale skeleton. It's a subtle composition, but as Wolfgang says, a good one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked the category, since these are the bones of a whale, not a whale itself. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 18:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Melolonthinae on a banana leaf.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2018 at 10:12:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Order_:_Coleoptera_(Beetles)
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit underexposed/tight crop but great detail! --Poc o² 10:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The stacking isn't perfect on the top part of the wing but otherwise very good.--Peulle (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Too many focus-stacking errors at the moment. Charles (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I really don't see any issue with the focus stacking here. Could you please add a note ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your picture is so detailed, small editing errors show up! I've added notes. ps - I love the groove in the leaf from the front left leg. Charles (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Charlesjsharp: Done -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at it. More to do! Charles (talk) 09:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. I won't do anymore -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And the notes must be edited on the nomination page, not on the file page. Please read the guidelines for more details Help:Gadget-ImageAnnotator#Local_annotations : "Sometimes, one might use image notes for an image on other pages, though. An example is nominations for featured pictures, where notes that are local to the nomination, but that are not shown on the file description pages, could be used to point out problems in an image." -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Support Excellent I'm sorry, but nobody asked me opinion before remove my review note. BTW, I have worked in photographs with a high level of complexity and even some in which I put my security at risk and I understand the enormous work that this has, however, I can not be a justification for ignoring my recommendations and especially the comments of Charles, another expert in this type of photograpy. --The Photographer 14:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Photographer: your note was not edited on the right page. There's no reason to read "blow area" on this file. Such kind of note is rather to specify the gender, or any detail that will help the observer to understand the content. Here you're talking about technical aspects, related to this nomination. Then, you're welcome to paste it on this nomination page, instead, if you want. But as I said, this is not blown : the focus is right, from the original files -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Photographer: Just be informed that a note added directly on the file page is considered as vandalism, and must be removed. You can strike your "Support Excellent" for any other reason, but please do it in good faith and in good knowledge. As mentionned in the page Commons:Image_annotations#Examples_of_inappropriate_and_not-informative_notes: "adding clearly inappropriate notes to images is considered vandalism and, if repeated, will get users adding such notes blocked. The types of notes described in this section should be removed." That's what I did, and there's no point to be upset about that -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that it was a vandalism, I think that you should report it to a admin. --The Photographer 22:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[No] Caution : Revenge vote 1 2 is not acceptable here. And yes, such subjective note like "This photo is underexposed" edited on the file page is vandalism from the official guidelines -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My oppose is because the blow area in the image,[1] a note added for me, and of courese removed because it was a "Vandalism". --The Photographer 00:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. This note was added on the 26th May and not followed by any change nor comment on the nomination page until I legitimately removed the notes on the 27th of May. The "Support excellent" was still there on the 27th at 12:59. Thus clearly a revenge -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you not to take my comments personally and if you are not accepting criticism of your images, maybe FPC is not a good place. After removing my note, you have called me vandal and a liar, which is a clear violation of the terms of service. --The Photographer 01:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Just after removing this note, which was posted on the wrong page, I kindly informed The Photographer of the issue, and initiated a nice invitation to re-paste it on the right page. At no time I employed the words of "vandal" expressly, nor "liar". Liar is an insult. I'm just saying The Photographer changes the history and is maybe not acting in good faith. In addition, 33 of my photographs were promoted here in the last 6 months, and I review a lot of pictures everyday in the FP section. Then I don't think I've got any lesson to receive from a weak reviewer unable to accept the consensual rules -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Amazing photo! But can you narrow down at least to the genus if not the species level? Melolonthina is a subfamily. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ikan. This picture is at least 12 hours work. About 3 hours shooting, 3 hours selecting the files from several series, 3 more hours improving the result on photoshop after focus stacking, and then 3-4 hours spent trying to identify the species. Installing the studio with lightbox, lights, tripod, camera and remote, finding a background, and positioning the insect is just the beginning. Working with living animals is never as simple as with inanimate object. See on this video what's the normal behavior of this beetle when it is not running away ! Not moving so much, but far enough to make you wait, wait, and patiently wait. Then sometimes it stops, so gooood you can start shooting. However, it's not just a single shot you make, but between 20 and 25 in order to create a single series with focus stacking. Each picture requires attention and vigilance. Most often, when you are at your 12th or 13th photo, then the animal decides to incline the body, or to move its leg, or the head, a short move that totally ruins the whole series. Better to change the angle and start a new compo to save time in the next step (selection). This day, I made about fifteen series. A few ones failed due to minor errors, like eyes not exactly in focus, some others failed due to the composition (one leg badly positioned for example), and many ones failed due to strong noise or low DoF, because 400 iso or f/7.1 was not adapted (though you have to be quick). Finally I got this version shot at 160 ISO and this one here at 50 ISO. This last series was made after the shooting session was finished, the equipment tidy, and the beetle already released on its support on my terrasse. But... funny thing, it finally got asleep, there ! So I started a new session, with the same equipment, and luckily managed to make these shots at ISO 50 /large DoF. Next step : selecting the files = very long ! Always zooming, sticking your eyes to the screen, find the file showing sharp eyes (very important), processing in the software, deleting some extra shots or some weak ones, etc. After that, choose the best series. Here again, zoom and compare, and it's not as quick as it seems ! When you have your final pictures, they're never perfect. Don't believe that the (excellent) software Helicon focus gives such a result right after processing. Because of the blown borders of the different parts, there's always a margin around the body where the background is not as sharp as the near area. The software is able to see a sharp hair, but when the focus is on it, then the background behind is blurry of course. So you don't have this missing part. A lot of work must follow on Photoshop, and this is also an important task. To finish, you have your beautiful piece of art, then you just need to upload it on Commons. But... I spent more than 3 extra hours trying to find the species. I'm a photographer, not a zoologist. Sure, I'm able to search and I managed to find this Eurema blanda, this hypomeces or this lytta in the past. However, the task was not as simple with this body. Spent unexpected hours on Wikipedia, Wikimedia, Google and BugGuide to identify the object, but that Melolonthinae really looks rare ! A similar one is shown on this blog, but without absolutely any detail. Now I am of good will of course, and ready to investigate further, but I honestly don't know how. Any clue welcome. This photo IMO is interesting for its level of details, especially the legs. This is a 28 Mpix sharp image. Totally agree that the species would be a great value, but the only thing to say now is it's big (51 mm) and found in Laos. See on Wikipedia, the Melolonthinae page, many tribes are just inexistant. I can guess it's a Melolonthini, but wikipedia doesn't mention this part of the world in its distribution -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. Hats off! I just hope someone can identify at least the genus. Jee, you haven't come around here for some time. Do you have any idea what species or genus this beetle is? Any other entomological experts we could ping, given that Charles would have presumably spoken up if he knew more specifics about this critter? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It might be very difficult to narrow down the ID any further without examining the specimen by experts. Usually they will not comment more even if asked. J e e 04:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks, Jee. Since it doesn't seem practical to narrow down this insect's identification more, I'll support. If we can ever determine what species it is, it could be a VI, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

id will be impossible withoput expert opinion. Looking at the lack of two large spurs on the front legs it does not appear to be Melolonthini or even Melolonthinae. This is a problem for FP I think. Charles (talk) 09:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's troubling. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's too easy to pretend a cat is not a cat as long as you don't prove it's a dog or a rat. Ikan, this specimen is most likely a Lepidiota (Melolonthinae -> Melolonthini -> Leucopholina -> Lepidiota). There's no page about this genus on Wikipedia in English, but one in French (Lepidiota) where it's said this Melolonthinae is common in South-East Asia. Size vary, and there's a few similar specimens on Google, examples : 37 mm, or 55 mm. Then now specified in the description & category -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral per the editing errors noted by Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: corrected. I've also increased the light a bit, from Poco's suggestion -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

still more focus-stacking errors to do though. Charles (talk) 09:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, and I don't think there were "blown highlights" on this File:Felis_silvestris_catus_lying_on_rice_straw.jpg neither -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Regretful oppose because Basile Morin has removed all my detailed notes identifying quite clear (though minor) focus-stacking errors. You'll have to go back through the History tab to see the errors. Charles (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of a "normal" focus stacking work : Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Lytta.jpg, 21 supports and a "good job" from Charles. Then, compare. Look at the central leg, for example. No way. This one is far better on the technical aspect. So if this picture is too big, just downsize it at 6 Mpix, that's far enough for a good quality print -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect I should have pointed out the editing errors on the previous FP nomination. I think when the proposed image is an artificial, though impressive, studio creation we can demand standards that are completely unrealistic for a traditional image. Yes the editing must take a very long time, but if the end result can be improved then we are entitiled to point out the flaws. Charles (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And concerning the "Regretful oppose, because Basile Morin has removed the detailed notes", just be informed that I simply respect the official guidelines of Wikimedia Commons : Such kind of non-informative notes edited directly on the file page are considered as vandalism and must be removed, per Commons:Image_annotations#Examples_of_inappropriate_and_not-informative_notes: To point out a problem on the image, one must follow the normal procedure : Help:Gadget-ImageAnnotator#Local_annotations -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made an error in adding notes on the file page. I apologise for this. I have done this for five years and this is the first time someone (Cart) explained the correct procedure. So I put my 100% valid notes in the wrong place, but that is no reason for Basile Morin to accuse me of vandalism. That is just provocative and not worthy of a talented contributor to FP. An apology would be welcome. Charles (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks great --Trougnouf (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 18:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tozina (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work.--Ermell (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Six notes added (hopefully in the correct place this time) to illustrate editing defects which Basile Morin has decided not to correct. Charles (talk) 09:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've added my comments behind each of them -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

procedural oppose. The image notes were added in good faith but in wrong place. Basile should have transferred them here, rather than just deleting them and expecting reviewers to redo all their hard work. Removing such notes is the equivalent of deleting a reviewer's text. Absolutely not acceptable. Nor is are the references to vandalism, which clearly does not apply to any reviewer here. I expect to see such words struck from this page and some attempt by Basile to make up with Charles and The Photographer, who are understandably upset. -- Colin (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree : "Procedural oppose" is not a valid reason to invoke here. Nor a correct way to review any photograph in FP. All the nominations should be judged for their technical and aesthetic features only, not by the personality of their photographers. Discussions are of course welcome, and we can always debate about some minor improvements, when those are reasonably justified. But it is not acceptable that good pictures suffer from fanciful oppose votes and reciprocally bad pictures fanciful supports, only because their nominators express dissenting or consensual opinions. We should use the template {{Abstain}} in association with such off topic comments, but definitely not send an appreciation likely to influence the final result. Considering a work is insufficient just because the photographer agrees with the official guidelines (readable here), it's like promoting a terrible snapshot because the author is a nice person. This bad practice favors a stressful atmosphere with unreliable reviews and more swinging votes like this one recently, when a basic support suddenly became a "strong oppose because of course Colin knows best and apparently I'm a complete moron" : Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Bondinho_do_Pão_de_Açúcar_by_Diego_Baravelli.jpg. Also we should neither harrass any user like Poco was harrassed here Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Pantages_HDR.jpg, and several times before. That problem occurs today again and I consider this so called "procedural oppose" precisely anti-procedural. More an extra mean of pressure to gain dishonest comments, that I'm not ready to spread. Unless other former edits get beforehand revised too, in the context my quotes are just timely. Sure we must be inclined in scanning our own creations with open eyes, by accepting all the fair reviews, favorable or unfavorable. Even if they were very minor, the corrections that Charles suggested at first were made, and a grateful reply sent in stride. Check the corrections in the history to see they match with the 7 notes added. Following this correction, 6 new notes arrived, with completely unrealistic expectations, in my opinion, for the reason a focus stacking work can never be perfect, from the technique itself consisting in mixing different images, that's just impossible. Not only removing such notes is acceptable, but it is even clearly recommended : "The types of notes described in this section should be removed." Maybe these notes should have been transfered on the discussion page, but because I found them more fanciful than serious, I prefered to invite the users to reiterate their wrong work, through an invitation to read the guidelines. It's true sometimes acurate and fair reviews can greatly help. Supports and Oppose's give objective sights on our personal creations. They're more than green and red lights, more than "likes" and "dislikes", they really provide orientations. Some tips can be useful in the current nominations, some others may be followed for the next times. But we're free to decide. Wikimedia Commons is not a dictatorship. Nobody here shall use their voting power to try to influence our thoughts, decisions, and personal actions. If the picture is good, its promotion is logics. If it is bad, it must fail for explicit reasons. But sending the message that a picture is bad just because such behavior would be much appreciated gives the worse example of what FP should be. Actually, this picture now suffers from two revenge votes, one from The Photographer and one from Colin, both sending whimsical and contradictory signals. Counter productive -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My objection is not with the "photographer", but with the nominator's actions/comments at this nomination, where negative review comments were removed and discarded by the nominator, and then false defamatory accusations of vandalism and revenge voting made against the reviewers. I see that Basile has now highlighted, rather than struck, his accusations of vandalism, and has made further dismissive and bad-faith accusations against reviewers wrt revenge voting. Basile, you are wikilawyering. If you had moved the misplaced notes to this page, and responded to them respectfully rather than dismissively, then we wouldn't have had this mess. -- Colin (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree The given link above points towards the original file, not towards the current nomination page. Because no "negative review comments" has never been removed and discarded from this page. Only undesirable notes from the original file got lost (and definitely lost I hope), for a justified reason. Now talking about "defamatory" is absolutely ridiculous and disproportionate. "Bad-faith accusations" are also not true -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I found them more fanciful than serious". You deleted them and did not copy them here, because you thought they were not serious good faith review comments. I never said the review comments were removed "from this page"? Review comments, made as part of the FPC process, by good faith reviewers, albeit on the wrong place, were removed and deliberately discarded by you because you didn't like them. You've accused those reviewers of being vandals, of making "fanciful" reviews, and of revenge voting. On what planet is that acceptable? -- Colin (talk) 10:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revenge voting : [No] not here -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 09:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC) Never thought it is possible to focus-stack a living beetle --Llez (talk) 11:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods#Order_:_Coleoptera_(Beetles)

File:Algae in Brofjorden at Govik 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2018 at 21:11:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Other lifeforms#Algae
Info All by me, (even if it has been suggested that I nicked the photo from NASA. ) -- Cart (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I struggle to find any favourable features. Charles (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. I'm just not seeing it. --Peulle (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Something special is missing -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I experience the picture as a beautiful painting.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Famberhorst.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like an Impressionist painting of an explosion at a cabbage soup factory ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're not far off, it is edible and very nutritious as most algae are. --Cart (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support The Brofjorden Nebula. I like how photography can be ambiguous in scale. Inches or light years? Still beautiful. -- Colin (talk) 08:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Most of the picture is blurred for no discernible artistic reason.--Ermell (talk) 09:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ermell, I would also have liked to have more parts sharper, but as the algae grow under water (which is not so clear) they are constantly moving and even on this extremely sunny day, a tradeoff had to be made with DoF to get the shutter speed short. The water "steals" too much of the light so this is the only way at a reasonable ISO. Photographing things under water is a bit different than on land. --Cart (talk) 09:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This makes the difference between QI and FP when such problems can be solved.--Ermell (talk) 10:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fix it the next time I walk on water. :) --Cart (talk) 11:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I kind of hate to be a killjoy, but the thing is, it does remind me of a kind of abstract painting, but not a kind I like. I think I'd need more happening in the lower right corner for the composition to fully work for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I don't think this is going any further, thanks all for your input and comments. --Cart (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 11:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:ET Amhara asv2018-02 img015 Wunenia.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2018 at 12:10:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family_:_Bucerotidae_(Hornbills)
Info Hemprich's hornbill at Wunenia near Gondar, Ethiopia -- All by A.Savin --A.Savin 12:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 12:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like CA in the tree.--Peulle (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The sky is blotchy. Could you smooth it out? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not FP quality in definition and the eye is not good. It's already been cropped, but the composition would have been enhanced by a much closer crop. Charles (talk)
The crop is of course discussable, but applied to the current crop as it is, remarks like "Not FP quality in definition" are definitely unfair, especially when compared, for example, with this photo, which is clearly less crisp with even lesser resolution. Not surprising for me though, that someone applies different quality requirements for other people's photos rather than for own ones. --A.Savin 17:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I think the crop would help (there would be less reason to ponder the unusually grayish sky), it would in all likelihood be too small for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --A.Savin 12:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alce (Alces alces), Potter marsh, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-22, DD 139.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2018 at 21:00:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info Exemplar of a female moose (Alces alces) in Potter marsh, near Anchorage, Alaska, United States. All by me, Poc o² 21:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Info This shot was not taken in a zoo. It's a wild and free animal and I was really lucky to have the chance of a close shot. Btw, we have no FPs of any moose/elks. Poc o² 21:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 21:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shoot, Why this 1000 ISO? It was done from a helicopter? the animal is sick (excessive amount of flies in the dark part of his leg) ? --The Photographer 21:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Photographer, if you check the exif data you'll see that I used 67 mm, not 670 mm, so I wasn't really far away, as said, I was lucky, it came from the blue. I used ISO 1000 because the lighting was tricky and the exposure time had to be short to get it sharp. I don't see this animal sick because of a minor cut in one leg, wild animals get hurt from time to time, that is how life out there looks like. Poc o² 20:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We may not have any moose FPs but I'm not wild about the quality of this photo. The light is very harsh and it makes it's fur look strange. Our moose usually have a deep warm brown tint to their fur. Are the Alaskan different? They are a nuisance on the roads here, so I usually get a very good look at them when I step on the brakes to keep from colliding with them. Unfortunately, they are always gone by the time I can get my camera out. --Cart (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cart: I haven't see so many of them that close, but you may be right, so I warmed it a bit. Regarding the quality, I challenge you to find out something better out there...I don't say that this would be a reason to consider this FP, but that may be a reason to figure out that capture a moose is not so easy (and in this case in her habitat, far from the road). --Poc o² 20:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there are a lot of good moose photos here in Sweden. They are not hard to find or shoot, it's just that those photographers are not active on Commons (you can picture Google "älgtjur" to get what I mean). The rest they really shoot them during our annual moose hunting season. There are too many of them so they need to cull the population, and moose meat is the most delicious thing you can get. They are also part of our cultural heritage. I'm sorry that I'm so used to good moose photos, having grown up with them around me, that I just can't support this. I expect to see a healthy and robust animal for an FP, something like these specimens (this or this, as you can see we even get them in our gardens). I'm not much of an animal photographer myself, but we do have a moose park just around the corner here and I've been thinking about maybe visit it. Animals in a park is about the level of animal photography I can manage. We'll see. --Cart (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly can't speak for Alaska, never having been there (and the parts of Yukon I've been to have neither roads nor moose), but someone I met once from New Brunswick said they are a problem on rural roads there ... basically, he said, if you hit one at full speed and you're not driving a pickup or SUV, you're going to die when the moose's carcass goes through your windshield, as they are that heavy. Daniel Case (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. They are top-heavy and not built for colliding with. My little Mazda is no match for them, so you have to be alert here when driving. --Cart (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've introduced some improvements in a new version --Poc o² 20:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first version uploaded look less

Overexposed . --The Photographer 21:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You challenged me to find a better photo. Now that I've fixed it a bit, I would much rather see this photo (compo, specimen, angle) over the nominated but none of them are FPs IMO, both have tech flaws. --Cart (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cart, lease, don't compare zoo or garden images with wildlife shots, that's just not fair. I traveled far away to have a chance to see a moose in its enviroment, I didn't go to the closet zoo were after paying 20 euro I can shot all animals I like Poc o² 22:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm not, don't be offended. That is a wild moose that has wandered into a garden from the forest to steal apples. They do that all the time in autumn. Sometimes the apples have been on the ground for a while so they have become fermented and we get drunk wild moose wobbeling around and some local hunter will have to come and shoot the moose. As you can see, that is a low garden fence. It is useless to keep the moose out of the garden, they just step right over it. Sweden is the country with most moose per forest area in the world. Here their natural habitat is in every forest patch between our houses and farms, so it is natural for them to get close to people and houses. We have to shoot about 100 000 of them each year to keep the damage they do to our forests at a reasonable level, in Alaska they shoot 7000 per year and Alaska is four times as big as Sweden. --Cart (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Most of our nature photos are specimen photos, with little artistic creativity, and so we value seeing a sharp clear image of a healthy typical animal or plant. Rarely we get beautiful compositions and beautiful light or we get interesting behaviour captured. Here is neither. The lack of existing moose FPs seems more to do with the arbitrary demographics of Commons photographers than any particularly difficulty finding/photographing one. We have better pics of similar mammals. -- Colin (talk) 07:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my discussion/reasons above. --Cart (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Poc o² 20:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:21-224-5054 NNP Synevyr RB 18.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2018 at 20:07:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Ukraine
Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Rbrechko (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rbrechko (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely scenery and mist. Although, for an FP, seriously, get some English text in the description, eh?--Peulle (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Rbrechko (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --A.Savin 20:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 07:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful colours and composition. Alexander Leisser (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support wohow :) - Benh (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support pretty. Charles (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Alexander -- P999 (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus 23:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 21:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Brown tabby cat 2018 G1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2018 at 05:29:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A bit dark for me, and I'm not wild about that overly bright sky in the background.--Peulle (talk) 07:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Beautiful snowy cat and well photographed, but per Peulle on the sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes the sky will be difficult to fix -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per others --Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 17:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amanita frostiana (Peck) Sacc 750397.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2018 at 19:32:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi
Info created by Jimmie Veitch - uploaded by Leoboudv - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Bright colours and good crisp image. Considered a quality photo at M. Observer. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P999 (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There is a copyright on the lower right corner of the photo. That makes it per se ineligible for a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 05:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan Kekek --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan.--Peulle (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan --Cart (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposers. --Cayambe (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cayambe :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Benedict Cumberbatch on the set of Doctor Strange.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2018 at 12:44:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People (and Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings ?)
Info created by Prishank Thapa - uploaded by TriiipleThreat - nominated by Groupir ! -- Groupir ! (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Groupir ! (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy, and what's the deal with this apparent light leak at the left? Daniel Case (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. Not even a QI. The out of focus foreground is distracting and the building not perfectly vertical -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others - although I do like the idea of Commons images of settings like this one.--Peulle (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, and could be FPXed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Dernekamp, Feld -- 2018 -- 0050.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2018 at 15:47:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 15:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 15:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice textural photo. I have tried similar views many times and failed, it's not as easy as it looks. --Cart (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 19:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Little is sharp. Charles (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Large sharp areas are impossible in such a shot. I speak from experience. --Cart (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. With more sharpness the photograph becomes more restless. An aperture of f/11 is IMO more than enough. I tried several times more or less aperture and it didn't work, f/8 up to f/11 is IMO a good choice. Otherwise it becomes too unsharp or too restless. --XRay ^talk 04:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: Is this a joke or are you serious? --Code (talk) 04:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am serious. Charles (talk) 09:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice. --Code (talk) 04:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If the sharpness range would be really sharp it would be an F.P. for me.--Ermell (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose: very nice compo, but DOF could be better. --Ivar (talk) 12:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe with a TS-lens or so. But I don't think it's fair to demand it --A.Savin 13:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Cart's experience, and ... it's texture. IMO that means the shortcomings of the DoF actually enhance it. Daniel Case (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose The image does have a certain something in terms of evocativeness, but I can't get past the lack of sharpness created by this effect. I know the use of a shallow DoF is done on purpose, but since the placing of the grass is so chaotic, it means that hardly any of them get any sharpness whatsoever, since none of them hit the shallow focus point perfectly. Looking at the straws, I can't find a single one that is sharp, even the ones that are supposed to be.--Peulle (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know the argument of DoF, but I can't follow. I'm trying to identify the problem, but I can't. IMO a lot of straws are sharp (enough). And DoF is good with f/11 (and APS-C Sensor). More means more diffraction and loss of sharpness. --XRay ^talk 07:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@XRay: FWIW, I don't think DOF actually is the problem here. I think it might be that the sections that are +/- in focus are all concentrated in the lower half of the frame, so the fraction of out-of-focus background is pretty large. Moving the sharp sections higher up towards the center (by pointing the camera down a bit or shooting from a slightly lower position) might help – but then you'd probably have to deal with additional out-of-focus foreground … --El Grafo (talk) 07:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, placing the DoF in the middle and you'd end up with something like this. Messy. I didn't even want to upload this at first since it came out so bad (and this was my best try) but if it can serve as an example of what middle ground focus can do, so be it. --Cart (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --El Grafo (talk) 07:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Disregarding the discussion of DoF, like others, I like the idea, but I just don't find this that great a composition to move my eyes around. To anticipate a possible question of how it could be better, that would have solely to do with the combination of shapes and is nothing nearly simple enough to describe in theory - I have to judge each picture of this kind of motif by what happens when I look at it. I guess my taste and standards for what makes a great composition differ from many other voters here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 06:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much blur for a texture photography, or something special is missing. It might be "not so easy" for the photographers to achieve such kind of shots, but based on my emotion and pleasure to look at it, the result is just not outstanding -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharpness, per others. --Karelj (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Explorer (21243483680).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2018 at 02:32:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Jeffrey Pang - uploaded by Hike395 - nominated by Hike395
Support -- — hike395 (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice view, but a little small for FP and too noisy, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really good composition and nice spot. If the technical quality was better, I would have supported the image. --Basotxerri (talk) 08:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The name should be describing the photo a bit better. These Flickr titles are seldom in line with Commons guidelines. --Cart (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan.--Peulle (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose Great view, but seems a little unsharp overall. Daniel Case (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 11:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parque Eagle River, Anchorage, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-09-01, DD 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2018 at 21:46:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info View of a lake in the Eagle River Valley, Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska, United States. All by me, Poc o² 21:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 21:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Never been there, but is the color balance a bit yellow for mid morning? Charles (talk) 10:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charles: Indeed, the WB was too warm, forgot to fix that, new version uploaded --Poc o² 11:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good now. Charles (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wish the cloud highlights could have been dialed down a bit but overall this is a great landscape ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Case (talk • contribs) Poc o² 07:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel: Wish fulfilled :) --Poc o² 07:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Better now. Daniel Case (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Too dark now, IMO. It doesn't seem likely those clouds would be that dark with so much light in the foreground. Could you move the sliders back a considerable distance toward the way it was? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem, Ikan/Daniel step back so that the change is not significant, Poc o² 08:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support What kind of salmon do we have here? :-)--Ermell (talk) 09:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support There's a tiny bit of CA (see note) when pixel peeping (300%+ of monitor), not enough not to support. --Trougnouf (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 11:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Waidhofen an der Ybbs Panorama 20180523.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2018 at 07:07:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Austria
Info Waidhofen an der Ybbs, Lower Austria. Equirectangular panorama from the bergfried of Rothschild Castle. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This really works for me. A pleasure for the eyes at any resolution. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but imho it's not outstanding - midday light with partly overexposed sky. --Ivar (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like this angle. It's just a bunch of rooves.--Peulle (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ivar and Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan --Suisant7 (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 06:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ordinary town taken from the wrong side. Yann (talk) 10:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 11:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:2018-05-28 23-32-45orage-belfort.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2018 at 18:17:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you please make the description of the photo a bit better, four words is not enough for an FP. I assume you don't want to do a perspective correction here or risk losing some of the clouds, but any little fixing would be appreciated. --Cart (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my !vote on the other one, although Cart's suggestions would be well taken. Daniel Case (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 06:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 12:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:2018-05-28 23-41-31orage-belfort.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2018 at 18:15:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In this photo the non-corrected buildings are too prominent, there is even a small something in the upper right corner. Even if this network of flashes is spectacular, the sky and lightning in the other photo create a better image composition. --Cart (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The lightning is spectacular. I actually like the artistry of not doing a perspective correction in this instance, because it adds to the feeling of chaos - literally, of disorder. I'll still support if you do a perspective correction, though. I do think there should be a crop on the right side to eliminate the corner Cart refers to. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart.--Peulle (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Puente sobre el río Nenana, Healy, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-29, DD 47.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2018 at 20:08:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info Bridge over the Nenana River, Healy, Alaska, United States. All by me, Poc o² 20:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 20:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The inside/underside of a bridge is a really, really common photographic subject. What sets the FPs at Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges apart is great light. This has the very opposite of great light. The geometric forms of the bridge are not clearly separated from the background, which ends up being a distraction. -- Colin (talk) 11:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: Please fix your signature. Yann (talk) 10:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aaargh. I've caught it from Charles. Excess tildes. Probably fatal. *cough* -- Colin (talk) 11:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ralf Roleček 12:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 16:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panorama of Agüimes, May 2018.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2018 at 20:25:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Spain
Info Panorama of Agüimes, Gran Canaria, offering an impression of traditional Canarian architecture. All by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me; it's seems a fairly uninteresting town in fairly ordinary light conditions.--Peulle (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree. It's a pretty view, but the crops on the left and right feel arbitrary to me and the sky could use some clouds. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment interesting, I really did expect the image to face a friendlier welcome here. I really like this picture for several reasons: There are several parallel horizontal "layers"; the image is arranged (roughly) according to the rule of thirds, the town's generally rather picturesque to me; weather and lighting are finally as one might hope for - in fact I visited this spot on different days (and passed it on even more occasions) because the weather was rather dull most of the time. But well, sometimes it's spinning the roulette wheel... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Info ok, I've redeveloped the raw to make the image a bit more vibrant (and to make the nom look more like the situation actually was. I may have been too cautious first), pinging Peulle, Ikan Kekek. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Much nicer but while good, still not an outstanding composition to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really, this unusual presentation wows me more than your other current mainstreamlike nomination that seems somewhat sterile to me. --Milseburg (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate support I wish the background could have been a bit sharper, but this works for me. Daniel Case (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination ok, it was worth a shot... double meaning intended ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Waidhofen an der Ybbs Pfarrkirche Innenraum 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2018 at 05:21:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Austria
Info Interior of the parish church Waidhofen an der Ybbs, Lower Austria. All by me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Maybe you could crop slightly more at the bottom of the picture frame, but that's an artist's choice. Very pretty and well-captured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very good quality and very nice although maybe not perfectly symmetrical. Would get my support instantly but I'd appreciate it if you'd add some more technical information (how many pictures/rows/columns, HDR and so on, see here for example - Commons is about sharing skills and knowledge). By the way I don't think that {{LargeImage}} is necessary here. --Code (talk) 09:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Code: There are 36 individual pictures in total, 3 rows and 3 columns with 4 exposures (+2/0/-2/-4), processed with PTGui and Lightroom. I use {{LargeImage}} whenever an image is larger than 50 MPix – this is the general recommendation. --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks. --Code (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent Daniel Case (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support As already in the QI nomination --Llez (talk) 10:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 11:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tunnel Belliard, coming out on Rue de la Loi.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2018 at 14:44:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Belgium
Info created by Trougnouf - uploaded by Trougnouf - nominated by User:Trougnouf -- Trougnouf (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Trougnouf (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good somewhat dystopic urban snowscape. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support dystopic indeed --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good, very nice Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 21:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like a futuristic movie --The Photographer 22:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per The Photographer. Daniel Case (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has grown on me. --Cart (talk) 09:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:NSB Di 4 Nattog Saltfjellet.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2018 at 21:35:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail Vehicles
Info all by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Night train Trondheim - Bodø on the Saltfjellet, just north of the Arctic Circle.
Abstain as author -- Kabelleger (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why ? Don't you like your picture ? or would you have preferred someone else nominate your work ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm obviously biased. --Kabelleger (talk) 07:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 01:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great as usual. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 06:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 07:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Granada (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 21:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot. I've done the route from Trondheim to Oslo / Bergen. Beautiful journey. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the whole journey (9h 50min) in winter, spring, summer or fall. --Cart (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P999 (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 05:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aerial view of Golden Gate Bridge from the south dllu.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2018 at 09:03:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info created by dllu - uploaded by dllu - nominated by Dllu -- dllu (t,c) 09:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- dllu (t,c) 09:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's good! What did you shoot it out of? A helicopter? I'm thinking it's from too high up to be drone photography? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was a Cessna 172M. My coworker graciously offered me a ride in his plane. Drones are prohibited over the Golden Gate Bridge. Since the Cessna was moving, I couldn't quite line up the bridge perfectly, but I think I got it fairly close. dllu (t,c) 10:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'll support it as a VI, but I don't think the rendering of the bridge is quite good enough for FP - sorry. It just lacks the crispness we tend to see in other featured photographs.--Peulle (talk) 10:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle; I also think the WB is a little on the warm side, and those boat wakes are a little distracting. Under different circumstances, though, I think a photo like this could be featurable. Daniel Case (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think the boat wakes can be helped. Take a look at Category:Golden_Gate_Bridge_aerial_photographs. Boats, or boat wakes, can be seen in every photo. It is a rather popular bridge and there's a lot of boat traffic when the weather is good enough for aerial photography.

dllu (t,c) 21:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could be helped; perhaps by flying out shortly after dawn (especially at this time of year) when there aren't likely (IMO) to be many people pleasureboating. Daniel Case (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think there's anything wrong with the crispness: aerial photography is often not as good as this. I do agree the WB/colour looks warm, though not sure when it was taken (the timestamp is surely wrong). I'd support if the WB is correct or fixed.

Info The timestamp is in UTC. The local time was 4:39 pm. dllu (t,c) 19:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't spot the "(UTC)". Not perhaps very helpful for the file description - a local time would be useful. Well, if you think the warmth is due to the time-of-day then I guess I Support. -- Colin (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I use UTC for my photos because I'm tired of having to change the clock in my camera every time I travel to a different time zone, and every time daylight savings time changes. Besides, all timestamps on Wikimedia Commons are in UTC. I suppose I could add to my upload script the ability to convert it to local time since I include GPS coordinates with every file. dllu (t,c) 00:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would be helpful. The fact that Commons timestamps are UTC is irrelevant -- we need a universal time for knowing which actions occurred before which, regardless of where the person was located. But a photograph, if it shows a time at all, should be local time. -- Colin (talk) 07:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the straight lines and the static composition works well for me (including the waves). The wb is warm but still ok. Alexander Leisser (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unusual view. Thanks you for this image. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 06:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The perspective is outstanding and the shooting conditions were not usual. I want have the full shadow there, but this isn't really hurt me. --Milseburg (talk) 11:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 12:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wu Tingfang LOC ggbain.00382.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2018 at 09:40:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info copyholded by Library of Congress - uploaded by JustSomePics - nominated by Алый Король -- Алый Король (talk) 09:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Алый Король (talk) 09:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like historical images but I think this one needs a bit more simple restoration, such as cleaning spots. Also (more easily fixed), the description is not accurate enough.--Peulle (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:20180602 FIFA Friendly Match Austria vs. Germany Rainer Pariasek 850 0540.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2018 at 18:54:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Granada - uploaded by Granada - nominated by Granada -- Granada (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another ORF sports anchorman posing for me prior to the friendly match of Austria versus Germany yesterday ending with a 2:1 victory for Austria. -- Granada (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support You must be very good-looking to get guys to smile at you like that. ;) The crisp white on white on white of the photo makes it special. The pink blob is a small minus but it matches his lips so overall ok. --Cart (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Cart. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like that sly smile. Daniel Case (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think you should keep an eye on Rainer Pariasek.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are we really going to feature a 6 MPix picture out of a 46 MPix camera? It's getting harder to understand the FP standards these days... --Code (talk) 05:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question Granada, any comment about this? It's an excellent portrait, but it's not a photo of a player in action, so why can't it be bigger? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When preparing the camera for the first shots of this evening I set the aperture to f/3.5 to still have a low enough ISO. But even at f/3.5 it has a very shallow DoF at its full resolution of nearly uncropped 46MP. The right eye is pin sharp but the nosetip and the quite exposed left ear looked strange to my eyes when pixel-peeping at 100%, so I decided to downscale it for upload. --Granada (talk) 08:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Don't rules say that photos shouldn't be QIs if they are downscaled to look sharper? People shouldn't be penalizing a humongous photo because it's not sharp at the very largest size (maybe with the exception of some panoramas and such). Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ This is clearly against the rules. The supporters above should reconsider their votes. How could we expect anybody to upload pictures at full size if we're going to promote this one? Regarding Granadas concerns it's perfectly fine not to have everything in focus here. A shallow DoF is quite a normal thing in portrait photography. We already had this discussion several times. I'll consider changing my vote to support after a higher resolution version has been uploaded because it's a very good portrait otherwise. --Code (talk) 04:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentDownsampling images of living persons is even advised under certain circumstances, so this was not at all against the rules. --Granada (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if full resolution could be offensive, but not in order to appear of better quality. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ - I have to agree with Code. It's against the rules. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I cite the rules: "Images should not be downsampled (sized down) in order to appear of better quality. Downsampling reduces the amount of information stored in the image file. Downsampling images of living persons is advisable if the images would otherwise show details of the body (e. g. skin, teeth) in unacceptable magnification, which could be considered offensive or violate the person's rights.". Please could someone update the rules so that they strictly prohibit any downsampling? And remove that sentence about living people. Thanks in advance. --Granada (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed The guidelines are now updated. --Cart (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

btw: it now has its full resolution. --Granada (talk) 07:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support reinstated. IMO, irrespective of questions about rules, the photo is so much more impressive this way. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan, please strike your 'Oppose' then, you can't have both. --Cart (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the oversight. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support After the higher resolution version was uploaded. --Code (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 12:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 00:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Black bearded man smiling, 2442565.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2018 at 16:38:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Leroy Skalstad, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not special enough for me. The quality can be discussed but mostly it's that I'm not really wowed. I think I might be more impressed if it was somebody famous or in a special setting; as it is, it's just a portrait of a guy with a beard.--Peulle (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The background seems to have posterization lines, except that when I look at the picture at full size, they disappear. Do you understand what's going on? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The grey gradient of the background added in post-process around the head seems to cover part of the hair and the ear, especially on the left side. The feather option of the selection before creating the blur was maybe not well adjusted. In this case, one must generally proceed in several successive stages. It looks like too much of the material have been trapped in the process -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan is the image you see with "posterization lines" simply the full size JPG resized by your browser to fit the screen, or is it a scaled down version generated by MediWiki (like the above "thumbnail" or preview size). If the latter, then we are at the mercy of the MediaWiki settings wrt how much jpg-compression and sharpening they apply when generating thumbnails. -- Colin (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They're like curved striations around his head, and they are visible when the full JPG is resized to fit completely on screen and when I increase the size of that by as much as 300%, but not when I view the file at full size. Strange, I don't think I've seen another instance of this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The unfortunate result is that it's hard for me to appraise this photo because I can't perceive the whole composition at full size, but it looks damaged at smaller sizes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see the ripple effect as you describe. Strange. Posterisation in an monocolour graduation is an unfortunately common problem and I suspect mostly due to the limitations of 8-bit JPG and our non-HDR monitors. Sometimes it can be hidden by applying a little noise. It isn't necessarily due to an artificial post-process graduation, as it can occur a direct photo of light graduating (e.g. clear blue sky). -- Colin (talk) 08:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Unfortunately there do seem to be retouching issues with the outline of the head. -- Colin (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my comment above. This is a nice studio photograph, with awesome lighting, and nice facial expression. The size is huge (31 Mpx) and the eyes get sharp at 66%. Too bad the post-treatment stage was sloppy -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basile Morin: How do you know it is a "studio" picture? According to the source, this comes from a series of homeless people portraits. Of course, the man posed, but I don't see any information about a studio. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yann, "studio shot or photo" is only a photography term. It means just about any photo where the person is posing under some kind of controlled circumstances. It can be as simple as letting someone sit on a chair by a window to be able to control where the light comes from. The photo session doesn't have to be done in an actual photo studio. A series of "studio photos" of homeless people can easily be done say in a hall where they give out food to the homeless or someplace similar where those who are being photographed feel comfortable. --Cart (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only a photography term? There is quite a difference between a casual pose, and a real studio set up, in term of light quality and potential photographic equipment... Yann (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, but still many photographers use the term in this way to describe photos like this to tell them apart from other portraits like these: 1 2 3. I didn't invent this use, I'm just trying to explain it, so please don't shoot the messenger. ;) --Cart (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cart. And yes, Yann, I believe it's a studio shot because it seems staged, and the light well controlled. Also remember you asked the same question on this nomination. But I'd like to insist on the very rush post-process here. If this treatment after shooting is not obvious to your eyes, look at this similar picture from the same artist. The background definitely got artificially blurred all around the face. This problem doesn't mean the picture you've downloaded is not beautiful, nor of great value, just maybe not the perfect candidate for FP. I've added a note. Also I think it would be interesting to mention in the description that this person is homeless. It makes the portrait even more interesting -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source doesn't mention that this person is homeless, so it may create a privacy issue. But it is quite possible looking at the photographer's page. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 00:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lopesan Baobab, Maspalomas, May 2018.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2018 at 20:18:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture#Spain
Info As the sun wearily rises over Gran Canaria, most tourists are soundly asleep - except for some guys from Britain and Germany who had already gotten out of bed to reserve their sundbeds with towels (as seen on the right) or to take pictures of swimming pools during golden hour (not seen). All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The perfect symmetry in nearly every detail of this image and especially in its visible lines above and even below the water make it a great shot. --Granada (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yeah, that's splendid. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Once again: "I want your camera, your lenses and your travel budget." :) --Cart (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 21:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Uph, beautiful. Great job! --Podzemnik (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shining -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool. --A.Savin 03:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 06:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P999 (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support When I saw this on QIC I knew I would be seeing it here soon. Daniel Case (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The colors are well matched. wow Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 07:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 04:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support "the towels" :-) --XRay ^talk 05:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 00:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sound suppression water system test at KSC Launch Pad 39A.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2018 at 17:19:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Space exploration
Info created by NASA, uploaded by Imjustmatthew, nominated by Yann (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That's really interesting. How do you feel about perspective correction for this photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a top-down photo, you can't do perspective corrections on those without the result looking really weird. --Cart (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please see en:Perspective (graphical) and en:Perspective control. The architectural photography where building verticals are absolutely vertical and parallel is itself a distortion and a form of "constructed perspective" that the eye would never see. It approximates reality only when the viewer is infinitely distant from the subject, and becomes increasingly unrealistic when very close to the subject -- hence some of our "corrected" images of buildings have bell or clock towers that look too large. It is also only valid when the viewing direction is perpendicular to a building (parallel to the ground), or close enough that we don't spot the error. Here, the view is most certainly angled down and we can't start to pretend it was ever parallel to the ground. There may be some en:Perspective distortion (photography) if an ultra-wide-angle lens produced an angle-of-view that is uncomfortably large, but there's no EXIF data for the image. -- Colin (talk) 08:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's quite interesting. I think I see a dust spot, though, and some chroma noise ... would some small fixes be possible?--Peulle (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question Might it possible to use some sort of distortion correction on something like this instead of perspective? Daniel Case (talk) 05:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. I don't think that a perspective correction would be good. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suisant7 (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 12:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 00:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:Río Savage, Parque nacional y reserva Denali, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-29, DD 96.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2018 at 16:50:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Savage River, Denali National Park‎, Alaska, United States. All by me, Poc o² 16:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 16:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice view, but a lot of unsharpness. Daniel Case (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Somehow a very poor reception, not what I was expecting. Thanks for your feedback Daniel. Poc o² 21:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 03:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:ToroToro canyon 2017.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2018 at 06:16:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Bolivia
Info created & uploaded by User:Vaido Otsar - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I really like the claustrophobic feeling of being in the canyon, which is also quite an interesting sight. The lack of much sky in the picture is IMO an advantage in this regard. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P999 (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate support Seems to have been a little vigorously sharpened, but still good enough for me. Daniel Case (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversharpened, as Daniel notes. I'm not getting the same feeling as Ikan, because this photo is taken above the canyon looking down, rather than in the canyon. I don't find it particularly 3-dimensional, hard to say why. Perhaps the constant fine detail or similar lighting throughout. -- Colin (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for your thoughtful consideration and comments. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Shadow. Yann (talk) 10:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination. I think you guys have a point about oversharpening. This photo could have been processed better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Corvus corax sinuatus, Point Reyes National Seashore.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2018 at 19:36:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P999 (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very nicely captured moment. --Peulle (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely done - are you sure you adjusted the shadows on your 30 March upload, Frank? The two images look the same to me. Charles (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I adjusted the shadows. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 09:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not perfect (bird not totally sharp and the rocks are a little distracting) but the expression just makes it. Daniel Case (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 17:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Amurleopard (Panthera pardus) im Schnee.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2018 at 07:59:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Mammals#Carnivores
Info created by Alexander_Leisser - uploaded by Alexander_Leisser - nominated by Alexander Leisser -- Alexander Leisser (talk) 07:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alexander Leisser (talk) 07:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice kitty but the editing leaves something to be desired. Perhaps you could take another shot at it? Not oversharpen the background so much, control the light and maybe bring out some of the shapes and shadows in the snow? --Cart (talk) 09:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Info The background isn't sharpened at all in post editing. I just tried to control the contrast in post editing. Lighting conditions were weak and I focused the light on the animal. Alexander Leisser (talk) 11:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There's also very clear and strong magenta CA, for example at the snow's margin just in front of the leopard. I like the drama of the shot, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Info The magenta CA is from the window I shot through and I'm afraid not editible at all. Alexander Leisser (talk) 11:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You use the color sampler in the CA section of Lightroom to single out and remove magenta CA. One click and it's done. If I had the raw file I could probably do something with it. Something like this --Cart (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral pending possible resolution of noted technical issues. Daniel Case (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Neptuul (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As a picture of a wild animal it might stand a chance. Charles (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be nice to correct the vignetting : dark corners -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rbrechko (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, since it doesn't seem that it will be edited. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. --Cart (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Vignetting too much visible -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Birdhouses on Sidney Spit, Sidney Island, British Columbia, Canada 05.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2018 at 05:12:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info Birdhouses on Sidney Spit, Sidney Island, Canada. All by -- Podzemnik (talk) 05:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support well executed, interesting - and wowy --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 09:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 17:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stark and interesting. The bird in flight is, on the surface, distracting, but it's something that should be in the picture. Daniel Case (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate support Some minor technical issues like small halos and resolution. But I like the composition very much. --XRay ^talk 05:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would like to be a bird there --Schnobby (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 12:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something different Poc o² 17:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Moose in Grand Teton National Park 3 (8007698498).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2018 at 11:19:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info A female moose grazing for water plants in Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming, USA. Created by Tony Hisgett - uploaded by Tm - nominated by W.carter -- Cart (talk) 11:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the kind of beautiful light, compo, detail and specimen I want in a moose FP. I like that this moose is photographed in the water. They eat just about any green growing things they can get hold of, including water plants. They are good swimmers and in the Stockholm archipelago you can see them swimming between the (24,000) islands looking like some Swedish versions of Basile's buffaloes. -- Cart (talk) 11:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Outstanding! -- P999 (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll just ignore this nom and assume that you are not trying to make a point here. --Poc o² 20:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poco: Do as you whish, but you asked me to look for better moose photos, I did and stumbled upon this. I really like it so I can't see why I can't nominate it. I honestly have you to thank for finding it, if you hadn't challenged me to come up with something better (I can't resist a challenge as Colin also learned), I wouldn't have found this. There are no sneaky thoughts behind this, that is not my style. I'm too blunt to have any hidden agendas. You know that if I find a photo I think is worthy of an FP, I will nominate it as I have done many times before. It's as simple as that. Once again thanks for the push to find this. :) --Cart (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Poco you wrote "I challenge you to find out something better out there." This is standard "find great picture -> nominate it at FP". The only person who seems to be making a point is you. -- Colin (talk) 07:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful light, etc, per Cart. -- Colin (talk) 07:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Info It is the National Day of Sweden today and guess what we got for a Google Doodle: grazing moose! --Cart (talk) 09:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 12:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Panoramic sunset in Conques 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2018 at 08:06:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#France
Info created by Tournasol7 - uploaded by Tournasol7 - nominated by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support very pleasant! Makes me want to visit this place at once --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely light. Though I would expect to get a higher resolution image from a stitched panorama. Other photographers would appreciate if you could supply, on the file description page, details of the stitch (number of frames, rows, columns, software used). -- Colin (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 09:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment isn't it too purplish? The houses are not facing to the sun and got that color, how do you explain that? Poc o² 17:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Seriema cariamidae.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2018 at 07:52:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Aves
Info created by Alexander_Leisser - uploaded by Alexander_Leisser - nominated by Alexander Leisser -- Alexander Leisser (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alexander Leisser (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Artistic and fresh. --Cart (talk) 07:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please clean up the numerous dust spots all over the picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DoF too shallow and I'm not wild about the top crop. The lighting is not that impressive either.--Peulle (talk) 08:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Basile has found a way to focus stack live bugs, I don't think we can expect the same with live birds unless you sedate them. ;) --Cart (talk) 09:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cart, that would be perfectly possible with a tripod if the subject is static. This wildlife shot was focus-stacked for example -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I could probably stack the neighbor's lazy dog too, but I don't think we should demand it for all living animals. --Cart (talk) 08:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But only the eyes in focus, at least -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor quality - see the eye. Charles (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Focus is wrong and composition awkward (cut feathers on top + too much space on the left) -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my comments - not done. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:ET Gondar asv2018-02 img18 Fasil Ghebbi.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2018 at 14:37:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info Vault of the ruined Palace of Emperor Iyasu I in Fasil Ghebbi ensemble in Gondar / all by A.Savin --A.Savin 14:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 14:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 05:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 03:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unnecessary, but friendly support. Wow. I like the ceiling painting. Looks like a real sky !--Jebulon (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eucomis montana, Ananasplant, Kuiflelie d.j.b 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2018 at 16:38:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Eucomis montana #Family Asparagaceae
Info Eucomis montana. Beautiful dark red flared old bulbs of Eucomis montana which have grown partially above the ground. The bulbs are not hardy in the Netherlands and must be overwintered frost-free. What I also like about this picture is the irregularly shaped top of the old spheres where the new shoot grows. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Makes a nice symmetrical abstraction. Daniel Case (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Philip von Schantz would agree. --Cart (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not with the blurred foreground. Charles (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very pretty bulbs and might be a good VI, but it doesn't fully work for me, maybe mostly because of the blurred foreground Charles refers to. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Both O.K. --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan. --Karelj (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Support--Famberhorst (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Also good. --Cart (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better :-) --Basotxerri (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Tighter composition, but otherwise, my remarks above apply. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Both O.K. --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan. --Karelj (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wernberg Sternberg Pfarrkirche hl Georg Vorhalle 19032017 6743.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2018 at 05:54:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need verticals fix --The Photographer 10:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done @The Photographer: Verticals were being fixed. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support excellent now --The Photographer 16:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Still kind of unsharp on the sides. Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 07:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Traffic signs during re-paving of a road in Brastad.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2018 at 16:38:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by me, -- Cart (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I kind of get what you're trying to do here - an 'ordinary day scene' could probably make it as an FP as the ordinary is extraordinary in its own way, but this particular scene just doesn't quite do it for me. (I'd also reduce noise a bit more). --Peulle (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 'ordinary day scene' was not what I was going for, so I guess I flunked this one. Re-pavement of a main road is done about once every 10 years or so, and that is not something you can document every day. I liked all the little traffic sign "seedlings" that seemed to have sprouted along the curved road. That's what made it special to me. If this was how our roads usually looked, we'd be in trouble. ;) I don't want to de-noise it too much, since it would take away the grittiness of the scene. --Cart (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Norwegian roads are so bad I see this kind of roadworks all the time ... ;-D--Peulle (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, commiserations. --Cart (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, no wow --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think a FP should be a bit esthetic. Sharpness and correct colors are not enough. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, I like to challenge that from time to time with more documentary or journalistic content. Sometimes it works, most of the times not, but it's worth a try. --Cart (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I guess I also get what you were trying to do here. It just doesn't really work, sorry. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Ok guys, I get it. Thanks anyway. --Cart (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 07:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sochi Sky Park.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2018 at 14:21:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info created and uploaded by SKas - nominated by SKas -- KSK (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KSK (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Can't see anything FP in this composition. Charles (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. --Basotxerri (talk) 07:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 06:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nominationKSK (talk) 07:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chitraas, Wama, Nuristan, Afghanistan - panoramio.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2018 at 11:43:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Afghanistan
Info created by Abdul Qahar Nuristan… - nominated by Ю. Данилевский (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow for me. -- Ю. Данилевский (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not for me, sorry. Lighting, contrast, and technical quality could be better. --Basotxerri (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basotxerri.--Peulle (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ per Basotxerri. Striking motif, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is quite a document. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It would be nice to have an FP from Afghanistan, and this had potential, but it's unsharp and the color cast at left just seals the deal. Daniel Case (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Colorwise it looks a lot better, but it's still a lot less sharp then an FP of this type should be. Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Now. It is an interesting and good composition so I took the liberty of fixing it. If you don't like it please revert it. 'Pinging' voters for the change: Ю. Данилевский, Basotxerri, Peulle, Ikan Kekek, Tomascastelazo, Daniel Case. --Cart (talk) 09:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Good work! That sure is better. However, the upper left corner still looks a little strange, and not just at full size but at 240% of full screen on my laptop. I think there's still some CA. I will consider whether to strike my oppose vote, but I don't think I'm ready to support, at least not yet. Would you like to do a bit more work on that corner? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That corner is really in shadow, so a totally different light than the rest of the photo. I think got the CA, what you see is probably blue tint of shadow. I think it would missrepresent the landscape if I brought too much of that part into sunlight. I can try to do some work on it though. --Cart (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Ikan, corner tweaked, that is as much as I can do. --Cart (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm still not convinced, sorry. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not, either, but for me, it's enough to strike my oppose vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Lo and behold! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:White Peacock, Palmitos Park, May 2018.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2018 at 18:25:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds#Family_:_Phasianidae_(Grouse,_Partridges,_Pheasants,_Quail,_Turkeys)
Info Male white peacock (Pavo cristatus mut. alba). This picture is not supposed to scientifically document the species' biological idiosyncrasies, of course. It rather shows what I actually hoped to get when taking the image - a sharp head surrounded by a pleasantly unsharp background formed by the bird's plumage on display. All by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support My Dog, that is beautiful! Now all we need is someone playing Claire de Lune in the background. --Cart (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding in many different ways. Amazing shot! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit scary, though. -- Colin (talk) 08:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 12:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 17:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Different type of composition, but may be look at the white balance, tone or something. Seems a bit dull. Charles (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment well, lighting conditions were somewhat challenging... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support great Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support angry bird? --Matthias Süßen (talk) 08:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 11:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 12:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family_:_Phasianidae_(Grouse,_Partridges,_Pheasants,_Quail,_Turkeys)

File:Gutweed at low tide in Brofjorden 8.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2018 at 21:20:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Other lifeforms#Algae
Info Let's try it this way instead. -- Cart (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Also a no. Charles (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know you like to be curt Charles and you don't like my photos, but you have to at least provide a reason for your oppose per the rules. Thank you, --Cart (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Composition not very interesting. Blown highlights. Over-exposed parts not in focus. Charles (talk) 10:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support splendid colors and cristal water -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support idem --A.Savin 01:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile. Also, much of the plant is crisp and has pretty textures. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan and Basile. --Granada (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Viewed in isolation, this one does have its virtues. Daniel Case (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 08:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Other lifeforms#Algae

File:Line scan photo of nine car BART C1 train in 2017.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2018 at 02:35:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Scrollable version of above

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info created by dllu - uploaded by dllu - nominated by Dllu -- dllu (t,c) 02:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- dllu (t,c) 02:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Info previous nominations: one, two. I've uploaded a new version this week which addresses all of the concerns from previous nominations. dllu (t,c) 02:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks fine now --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Mister blue sky please tell us why / You had to hide away for so long (so long) / Where did we go wrong?" -- Colin (talk) 07:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow --Trougnouf (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 17:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Of course it's very impressive, but why is there a red cast, especially noticeable higher on the train? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And what about these strange posterized colors e.g. in the purple car in the middle and the greenish bleeding or banding in the usually black bellows between the cars? --Granada (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Compared to the first upload, this image is a bit darker. Also, in the first upload, the darkest areas (including the black bellows between the cars, and the windows) had a brown tint, and now they have a green tint. This side of the carriages is in shade, which doesn't help give us great contrast and colour. There are some colour bands/shifts on the purple car, though it is covered in a poster, so perhaps the posterisation isn't our fault! I wonder if your sensor/algorithm is less reliable wrt colour in the darker tones? Why has it shifted from brown to green for those? Next time, can you get someone to hold one of these as they whiz by, so we can be sure the colours are right! -- Colin (talk) 06:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am aware the colours aren't perfect currently, but they are vastly better than before. I've spent a lot of effort trying to mitigate the tinge and I think that now they have been reduced to a point that doesn't significantly detract from the image. As for holding up the colorchecker passport, remember the line scan camera can only see a tiny 1px slice of it. There is no way to image the whole passport at once. Moreover, every pixel has a slightly different sensitivity. For example, the greenness is much stronger towards the top of the image than the bottom (as seen between cars 349 and 1644). I think you are probably right that calibration in the field would be better than calibrating at home since the sensitivity and noise level of the sensor seems to change with temperature. If you can think of a way to move the colorchecker passport in such a way that it is possible to programmatically recover which of the squares each pixel is looking at, such that each pixel has the chance to look at all the squares, all the while not changing the angle of the colorchecker passport with respect to the light source (assuming the colorchecker passport isn't perfectly Lambertian), while moving it fast enough that the thing can be captured without a significant change in the sun's position --- please suggest such a method so that I may implement it. By the way, of course the colours are less accurate for dark areas. Like all image sensors, this is a (nearly) linear image sensor, whereas the image shown here is a gamma-corrected image using the piecewise sRGB function. The slope of the sRGB function, as you may recall, is 12.92 in the dark region. Any constant additive noise in the sensor, such as thermal noise, in that region will be amplified by 12.92 times. If you consider the fact that the shutter speed used here (around 1/30,000 s -- I'll have to check when I get home) is several times faster than the fastest possible shutter speed of your DSLR camera, you'll see that the noise level is actually fairly reasonable. dllu (t,c) 07:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Info Here is a link to the 4096 calibration matrices (3x3) that I'm using. If you find more accurate calibration matrices for this particular photo, feel free to make a pull request. dllu (t,c) 07:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about a compromise? I guess your hands are free while ur device scanlines the train. You could take pictures of the passing train with a "regular" camera (which would be easier to calibrate using the color checker) and use the outputs as reference (don't ask me the details, I don't know how). Sounds feasible for someone versed in image processing. - Benh (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My colour checker idea was a bit of a joke really. But Benh's idea is a good one. For most purposes even, getting the colours similar by eye would be good enough -- a whole lot better than trying to remember the sky colour or shade of a poster blue. Wrt variation between pixels, surely that is something you can calibrate at home in the studio with reference images -- isn't the variation in the field a global effect? Wrt your shutter speed and amount of light captured, do you have any idea what the equivalent ISO of a regular camera would need to be? Does your camera need focused or is it like a pinhole camera? -- Colin (talk) 08:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The variation seems to change with temperature and time or something. Now that I think about it, the green cast can also be due to lens flare since the sun was in the background. I calibrated the camera at home but it was several months after the photo was taken, and the greenish cast towards the top of the image didn't seem to show up in my calibration data. And yes, the camera needs focusing. It just uses a regular photographic lens (Nikon F mount, manual focus). Nailing the focus of a large aperture lens when you only have a tiny sliver to look at is incredibly challenging (I think this was shot at f/2.8). The length of the sensor is 28 mm, about the same as the diagonal length of APS-C sensors. I spent all afternoon scanning BART trains and this was the best one I got. By the way, in case you were interested: here's a video of me scanning a Queensland SMU 260 recently. I'll process and upload those soon. Uunprocessed, uncalibrated sneak peeks SM260 SM220. dllu (t,c) 09:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Benh (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support cool idea. good realization. i like to ride the train virtually. --Matthias Süßen (talk) 08:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Haven't seen this before. --Ximonic (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Incredible Picture. Bravo! --Gnosis (talk) 06:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looks like Gnosis' vote was too late to count. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eriphia verrucosa female 2012 G1.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2018 at 07:10:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition (can't really see eyes)/technical quality. Charles (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is rather static. A crab on a rock ... and? Daniel Case (talk) 06:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 06:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Even as a static composition, this might work if there were more light on the crab than on the rock in front of it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ipomoea purpurea 2016 G1.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2018 at 07:03:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shadows and DoF. Charles (talk) 09:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see what might have attracted you, but it just didn't work here. Daniel Case (talk) 06:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, but if you radically cropped around the brightest flower, I might support, depending on what the resulting composition looks like - except that I suppose such a photo would be too small for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Río Yukón, Carmacks, Yukón, Canadá, 2017-08-27, DD 01-04 PAN.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2018 at 16:54:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Yukon River, Carmacks, Yukon, Canada. All by me, Poc o² 16:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 16:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good compo. Lower right corner a little bit bright though, a small tweak would be appreciated. --Cart (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lots to see.--Ermell (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition, you are standing at the right place --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Matthias Süßen (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 11:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 16:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aerial view of Our Lourdes church in Tiruchirapalli 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2018 at 17:52:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by IM3847 - uploaded by IM3847 - nominated by IM3847 -- IM3847 (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Michielverbeek (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Main object is not sharp enough for me for FP, other parts are too misty[reply]
Oppose er Michielverbeek. Good atmospheric QI, but not an FP, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the top of the steeple is too close to the edge of the image. dllu (t,c) 21:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background too cluttered, subject interesting but shot from too far back, steeple too close to edge of image. —Eve Teschlemacher (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: as per above comments. Yann (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I withdraw my nomination --IM3847 (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunrise near Thotlakonda beach 13.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2018 at 18:02:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created by IM3847 - uploaded by IM3847 - nominated by IM3847 -- IM3847 (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very unsharp foreground bothers me, and it's just not an outstanding photo in general, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much noise reduction or something; unnaturally oversaturated rocks. dllu (t,c) 21:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: as per above comments. Yann (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I withdraw my nomination --

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trooping the Colour 2018 (13).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2018 at 15:28:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info Senior members of the British royal family riding in a horse-drawn carriage along The Mall from Horse Guards Parade towards Buckingham Palace after the 2018 Trooping the Colour. Facing the side of the camera is Sophie, Countess of Wessex. Also in the picture facing away from the camera are Princess Eugenie of York (green), and Lady Louise Windsor (blue). Also in the carriage was Princess Beatrice of York. All by KTC -- KTC (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Only one of the three visible. The white hat dominates. Charles (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles.--Peulle (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'd be very happy to get this shot, but I agree with the others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- KTC (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Volvo V40 Cross Country.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2018 at 21:13:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Automobiles
Info Front view of a 2017 Volvo V40 Cross Country. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's not my usual subject but I like the composition and nice evening light and a very sharp view of the front. -- ArildV (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not FP in composition. Charles (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow.--Peulle (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--ArildV (talk) 04:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Morské oko (v máji) 004.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2018 at 19:04:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Milan Bališin - uploaded by Milan Bališin - nominated by Milan Bališin -- Milan Bališin (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milan Bališin (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A perfectly good QI, but to my eyes, there is nothing unusual or special about this view or composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan.--Peulle (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Milan Bališin (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vihorlat 088.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2018 at 17:28:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Milan Bališin - uploaded by Milan Bališin - nominated by Milan Bališin -- Milan Bališin (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milan Bališin (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special. Charles (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry for this time. No WOW for me --Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 08:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the texture of the snow and how the light interplays with it, and although the composition is kind of busy it was not so much so that I couldn't forgive it. But ... the mountain slope in the background is very unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Milan Bališin (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:On a bed of roses (41663547782).jpg, not featured[edit]

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

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Paul Lucas - uploaded by Moheen Reeyad - nominated by Moheen Reeyad -- ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 07:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 07:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Focus seems to be more on her shoulder than on her eyes and the roses and I'm not too crazy about her face being totally in shadow. Also, once again, these poetic Flickr file names are not very in line with the more plain Commons naming structure. Something like "Girl on floor with ten roses" would be more like it. --Cart (talk) 07:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice idea, but I agree with Cart on not finding her face in shadow compelling and wanting a name change. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 119.18.148.6 03:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luxembourg pl Guillaume II vers rue de la Reine.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2018 at 07:10:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Cayambe --Cayambe (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Info Place Guillaume II in Luxembourg City. The statue is of William II of the Netherlands, Grand Duke of Luxembourg and King of the Netherlands (1840-1849). The autonomous Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was created in 1815 as a result of the Vienna Congress, to be reigned, as Grand Duke, by the King of the Netherlands. Since 1890 Luxembourg has its own monarchical dynasty. Part of the Grand Ducal Palace is seen in the right background.
Support -- Cayambe (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sure ordinary street scenes can be cool, but this one is too ordinary for me. No wow. --Peulle (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle, even though the light conditions are quite good. Maybe it would have worked if this was the front side og the monument --A.Savin 02:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems to me to be trying to do too much. Some of this might make an FP, but not all of it. Also, it seems like it could have benefited from a little less exposure, but I can't tell what the original setting was from the metadata. Daniel Case (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I got the message. Thanks for the reviews. --Cayambe (talk) 05:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kagbeni Mustang-WLV-0745.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2018 at 12:33:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Nepal
Info All by me - nominated by Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 12:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 12:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tree hiding the building. Yann (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tree hiding the building. Charles (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Disturbing foreground object.--Peulle (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Unrestful composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Gnosis (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 08:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:1632 Leopold V von Oesterreich-Tirol Avers.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2018 at 12:12:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info Silbertaler 1632 Leopold V. von Österreich-Tirol, all by -- Ralf Roleček 12:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ralf Roleček 12:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would support a version with both sides. --Yann (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As illustration of this people here is the single Version needed. To illustrate the Coin her you can use the two Files. To illustrate the coat of arms you need the Revers... But it's no problem, i can add the two sides to a new file. --Ralf Roleček 13:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Matthias Süßen (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Info "Licensing – Images licensed with solely "GFDL" or "GFDL and an NC-only license" are not acceptable due the restrictions placed on re-use by these licenses." J e e 02:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Not an acceptable license. Yann (talk) 09:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment FPX per license not contested for three days. --Cart (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haßberge fields PB060078.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2018 at 06:24:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Germany
Info created & uploaded by User:Ermell - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I really like the light and lines in this composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes the light is nice but the choice of cropping the road that way leaves the composition unbalanced. Also the overhanging cloud at the top makes it feel a bit claustrophobic. A somewhat different placing of the camera and another photo format would have been better. --Cart (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it's worth, I really like the road curving from the lower right to the upper left. Obviously, everyone will react differently to a photo. Thanks for considering it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support very pleasant picture Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support for me the composition is ok. The road guides the view of the spectator to the cumulus clouds in the right centre (golden ratio) and to the impression that they somehow settle down on the horizon line.--Christof46 (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nomination Ikan.--Ermell (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the photo and uploading it. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support It is a quiet dark photo, but in this case it really adds something to the composition (wow) --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not so bothered by the clouds and the crop but ... a lot of the field on the left is unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 05:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 12:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Juac y Odles.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2018 at 05:07:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Italy
Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 05:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 05:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~oppose for the time being~~ So Wolfgang got himself a Hasselblad :-) great - but both too bright and too reddish/purplish (wb?) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some people buy motorbikes some buy a Hasselblad ;-). I checked the histogram and WB which looks perfect to me --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since you were there and I was not - and because it's simply too beautiful not to support... Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --A.Savin 00:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support for a pretty place this is one pretty place Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 08:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Composition is too good to argue too much with, but I still wonder if the WB could have been improved. Daniel Case (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have a feeling that it is slightly too violet, even having the visited the place and seen it by my own eyes. Although, I understand the weather conditions can affect it. --Ximonic (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW! But please check the colors. -- Wolf im Wald 12:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect in detail. However, adjusting colors might help (per others). — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 16:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Puesta de sol, Tok, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-28, DD 189-191 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2018 at 21:43:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info Sunset in the woods in Tok, Alaska, United States. All by me, Poc o² 21:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 21:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ The trees look really bad - I don't know if those heavy halos are CA or what, but the light makes it look really unfortunate.--Peulle (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Heavy noise ~~and chromatic aberration cited by Martion~~, IMHO, fixable with a better raw developping --The Photographer 16:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Peulle, Martin Falbisoner, and The Photographer: Ok, I've uploaded a new version, the halos are gone Poc o² 16:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Better now --The Photographer 18:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yes, better. --Peulle (talk) 10:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 09:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sort of far-north answer to all those images from the tropics of palm trees silhouetted against the sunset/dusk that I was trying for here with the midnight sun rather than the dusk (because the two are mutually exclusive), as it should have been realized. Daniel Case (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others, this is not the kind of picture you pixel-peep. --El Grafo (talk) 07:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 16:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - lovely. Atsme 📞 16:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yeah I think this is much better than the first version. I like naturality of the composition. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 01:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 10:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martin -- P999 (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Storkk (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Attacus taprobanis-Kadavoor-2018-06-06-001.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2018 at 06:05:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info Attacus taprobanis is a moth of Saturniidae family. It is native to southern India and Sri Lanka. This species is very similar in morphology to the much more widely distributed Attacus atlas. It was once considered a subspecies of A. atlas. The larvae feed on various bushes and trees. Adult moths do not take foods and survive on fat they have stored from their larval period. Here the larva feeds on Swietenia macrophylla. Size: Length: 80mm; Thickness: 20mm. Created, uploaded and nominated by Jkadavoor -- J e e 06:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- J e e 06:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aesthetic as always. Namaste and welcome back to FPC Jee, you have been missed. --Cart (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes welcome back Jee! Great detail. Is the yellow disc meant to look like an eye? -- Colin (talk) 10:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Colin; it seems a false eye to confuse the predators about the head. J e e 11:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, welcome back. Charles (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Welcome!!!! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow Poc o² 07:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - When I saw this in QIC, I expected to see this here. Great detail! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Happy to be back in the same time of Jee provides us another beautiful picture ! Good to "see" you again, hallelujah !--Jebulon (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on support Daniel Case (talk) 00:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 11:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 10:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dassault-Dornier Alpha Jets - Duxford Air Festival 2018 - 2.jpg, featured[edit]

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

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air_transport#Military jet aircraft
Info Dassault/Dornier Alpha Jets in formation. Flown by Patrouille de France at the Duxford Air Festival 2018. All by me. -- Colin (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I uploaded a version "fixing" the sky noise, however, I rollbacked myselft waiting for your approval. Anyway, Noise is information too and I will support the noise or denoise version as well --The Photographer 16:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, The Photographer. I've applied your version. What technique did you use? I was reluctant to apply too much global NR in Lightroom. -- Colin (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I use a selective denoise with Neat Image, using the manual selection patern tool and playing with Luminance and Chrominance reduction ajusting it manually and in this case I'm not applying any sharpening. It is more better than the global lightroom destructive nr --The Photographer 18:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support excellent lighting and composition, very sharp, noise not an issue imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martin I've uploaded 70 photos taken at the show, which you can see in my recent upload log. The light at the beginning was pretty bad but improved towards the end, when the jet formation display took place. -- Colin (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Colin. There's a great number of really awesome pictures. Well done! I haven't been to an airshow since my own Luftwaffe days, two decades ago... :-/ --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Big wow. :) --Peulle (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How am I supposed to be able to support this, I mean the two top left planes in the formation are off by as much 2.9%. Unacceptable!! Of, course I'm kidding, . Great photo and Support! --Cart (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice shot. Charles (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Michielverbeek (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Don't cry. RedArrows are not bad neither...--Jebulon (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Peulle -- P999 (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Excellent! -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on support Daniel Case (talk) 05:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 12:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 16:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 10:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Patriccck (talk) 10:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Air_transport#Military jet aircraft

File:Panorama vom Pferdskopf (Rhön).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2018 at 17:51:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Germany
Info Instructive panoramic view from the Pferdskopf over the Rhön Mountains and the biosphere reserve -- Milseburg (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Again a lot to see.--Ermell (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The parachutist was a nice surprise at full-res. Daniel Case (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 16:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is an unfortunate seam area, which is likely only noticeable since it happens in the middle of a close tree... it would be great if it were fixable, but understandable if it wasn't. The seam concerned is at roughly (17856, 1846) and down 330 pixels (it actually continues to the bottom of the image, but I'm less sure it's necessary to fix further than the bottom of the tree... the grass and a couple flowers suddenly get blurry going right to left). Even if not fixable, I'd Support... but it would be great it if it were :-) Storkk (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

fixed Thank you for your close look and the review. I improved this detail and uploaded a new version. I hope we are meaning the same point.--Milseburg (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... much less noticeable now. Looks good! Storkk (talk) 08:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Harper's for September (2015646443).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2018 at 22:00:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Edward Penfield - uploaded by Moheen Reeyad - nominated by Moheen Reeyad -- ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 22:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 22:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. Yann (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 12:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lukáš Bundil 4.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2018 at 14:13:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/People#Events_(Arts,_concerts,_shows...)
Info created by Patriccck - uploaded by Patriccck - nominated by Patriccck -- Patriccck (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Patriccck (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 12:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Faro de Maspalomas, May 2018 -2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2018 at 08:08:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Spain
Info Faro de Maspalomas, Gran Canaria, with "Fuente de la Morena" (Morene Fountain), all by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The top of the tower seems a bit distorted. --Trougnouf (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perspective distortion at wide angles can't always be helped --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the wide angle lens was not needed here? Charles (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, it was! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perspective distortion of cylindrical objects always looks weird. Oh well. dllu (t,c) 06:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 12:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Studniční hora v zimě z Růžohorek.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2018 at 09:46:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Czech Republic
Info created by Patriccck - uploaded by Patriccck - nominated by Patriccck -- Patriccck (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Patriccck (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: The resolution is below minimum size requirement --Milseburg (talk) 11:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I withdraw my nomination --Patriccck (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 12:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:VitrauxOratoire-Blois-2018.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2018 at 06:30:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created by CrlNvl - uploaded by CrlNvl - nominated by CrlNvl -- CrlNvl (talk) 06:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- CrlNvl (talk) 06:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition: the bottom crop is wide while the top is too tight. --Peulle (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose per Peulle, it's unfortunate that the top circles are cut off. Storkk (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. There is a very high standard for stained glass window FPs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of the issues identified in the above opposes

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.

Daniel Case (talk) 04:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 12:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:A closeup shot of Pamban Bridge.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2018 at 02:31:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by IM3847 - uploaded by IM3847 - nominated by IM3847 -- IM3847 (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IM3847 (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't mean to be rude, but I suggest you try Quality Image Candidates or COM:Photography critiques. This is not a good composition. The horizon is very obviously slanted instead of straight and there's nothing particularly amazing about any of the rest of the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In addition to what Ikan said about composition, the technical quality is not there either. The picture is lacking in detail throughout, and the right side is noticeably blurry. I think it is very challenging to take pictures of high technical quality with a phone in most situations (lack of technical quality may be excused for certain fleeting moments in journalistic photography, but not for a static scene like this). Consider bringing your Canon EOS 1300D to this place, preferably with a tripod, and take photos in interesting lighting conditions. dllu (t,c) 08:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the technical quality and composition are far from FP standards.--Peulle (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I withdraw my nomination --IM3847 (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 12:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gumba at Jharkot, Mustang-IMG 1316.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2018 at 17:30:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Nepal
Info created by Bijay chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay chaurasia - nominated by Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 17:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 17:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Photo seems to be leaning back as it goes up. Also closely cropped on the left and probably the right (I don't like the piece of a building and would like to see more of the mountain if possible, like as much of the right side as the left side) and the shadows below are distracting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, patterns seem too random. Daniel Case (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 07:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 12:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Traditional loom at Ranipauwa-Muktinath, Nepal-WLV-1197.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2018 at 10:31:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects#Others_2
Info created by Bijay chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay chaurasia - nominated by Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 10:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 10:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Subject does not stand out well against the background; work in progress on the loom is in shadow; focus is sharper on fabric draped on frame than on the working parts of loom. I yearn for a different angle and better lighting/focus that would let me visually explore the details of the mechanisms. —Eve Teschlemacher (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Eve. Daniel Case (talk) 05:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 07:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 12:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vrouwenmantel (Alchemilla mollis) d.j.b 04.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2018 at 18:04:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena Alchemilla mollis covered with raindrops.
Info Alchemilla mollis. Alchemilla mollis covered with raindrops. Alchemilla mollis showing the beading effect of water on its leaves All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Can't seee any point in B&W Charles (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning. --Yann (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles. --Karelj (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles. --Eve Teschlemacher (talk) 05:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing against B&W, but this one doesn't really work for me. --El Grafo (talk) 08:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 00:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Construction workers in Mexico.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2018 at 02:49:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simply great! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Striking but not quite at FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 06:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support pace Daniel - clearly at FP for me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting, imaginative, unusual, graphic. --Cart (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something different Poc o² 07:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like Tomas' surprises.--Jebulon (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simple, different, striking. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Arresting and striking. --Eve Teschlemacher (talk) 05:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 05:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Inside an abandoned military building in Fort de la Chartreuse, Liege, Belgium (DSCF3343).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2018 at 21:42:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Belgium
Info created by Trougnouf - uploaded by Trougnouf - nominated by User:Trougnouf -- Trougnouf (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Trougnouf (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral very nice but I'd prefer the version without the bicycle - that doesn't really add to either composition or motif --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI understand and was afraid of this which is why I made the alternate after I nominated it.

I don't like the alternate as much for several reasons.

I think the tighter crop is less pleasant to look at and that the ground in front of the picture does add to the composition (the leading space itself and the random bits of broken stuff and litter), and it seems impossible to remove the part of the bike that covers the ground.

The bike definitely adds an imperfection to the picture and I would have liked to have an alternate where it's naturally not there but I think it's an acceptable imperfection, I enjoy looking at this picture over long periods of time the most out of all the pictures in my rotating background, hence I ended up nominating it, of course I am biased as I love that bike which gets me into all these cool places and brings some of the fondest memories I have whereas it may in fact just be an eyesore.

Last but not least I think this picture deserves a chance over the inpainted one because it's real whereas the other one has had a significant part cloned out, that process itself is an imperfection and it brings many.

I thought I would withhold the alternate for another submission if this one fails but it wouldn't be very nice to spam you over eighteen days with the same picture, so I'm adding it as an alternate. I'd much prefer if the original got promoted but the choice is yours. --Trougnouf (talk) 10:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeWhy the bike? Charles (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poor decision making. I like to include my bicycle, and I spent too much time (~90s) doing unnecessary exposure bracketing when I could have used that time to take a picture with the bike, one without, and a third trying to hold an acrobatic pose for 30s, or explored that amazing place further. (I highly recommend it if you are ever in Liege, it's an abandoned military base turned into public parc that nature reclaims, all within the city, although I didn't see any wildlife except for a cat and the first squirrel I've seen in Belgium.) --Trougnouf (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Karelj (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 12:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Both o.k.--MZaplotnik^(talk) 18:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative (cloned-out bicycle and crop)[edit]

Info Alternative where the top of the bicycle has been cloned out and the bottom cropped. I would much prefer for the original to be supported if it is FP-worthy as per my lengthy comment. --Trougnouf (talk) 10:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support you're right! your original nom - without the bike - would be best imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeWhy the darkness? Charles (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a dark place, still there is plenty of room on the histogram, I increased the exposure on the original but it will take me some time to update this one as I have to redo the cloning and I'm currently without a ~~mouse~~trackball. --Trougnouf (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I am much happier with it this time around and starting to like this abstract mess. --Trougnouf (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The Photographer 16:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Wolf im Wald 12:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Both o.k.--MZaplotnik^(talk) 18:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sidney Spit, Sidney Island, British Columbia, Canada 23.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2018 at 04:50:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by me -- Podzemnik (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sophisticated. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose forced composition. Charles (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A good, interesting composition to me. I don't know what you mean by "forced", Charles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 08:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 16:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support Not perfect—one could wish for a better sky, and greater DoF—but those are quibbles here. Daniel Case (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 13:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Categorization could be better. --XRay ^talk 06:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, thank you. I've added some. Next time I'll try to keep in mind to add more. Regards, --Podzemnik (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Campinas, detalhe do Palácio da Justiça.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2018 at 13:04:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Carlos Eduardo Ferreira, from Campinas, Brasil - uploaded and nominated by Capmo.
Comment Although its technical quality isn't as high as one would desire, I like very much the photo composition: the contrast between the high relief of Lady Justice on a black granite building (the Palace of Justice, in Campinas, Brazil), and a man in white suit, with vitiligo, reading some papers. —capmo (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support —capmo (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry, it's my first nomination. Should I have nominated it for COM:QI or COM:VI instead? —capmo (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Info QI is a good place to start; if promoted there, the image will be seen to be of good technical quality. VI is a good place if you think the image is a good illustration of something specific, e.g. the best image on Commons of a specific object. Here at FP, only very good technical images that also have a certain wow factor are usually promoted.--Peulle (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation! QI would be a good choice, but I just read in the QI guidelines that the image must have been created by a Commons user, which is not the case here. And VI doesn't seem to apply to this photo. That's a pity... —capmo (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not the work of a Commoner, so it can't be a QI. I like the composition very much, however the quality is not there. Specifically, the man's clothes are overexposed, among other issues. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others; just not technically good enough. Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for your comments. I'm withdrawing the nomination for lack of technical quality. —capmo (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--—capmo (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:20180610 FIFA Friendly Match Austria vs. Brazil Gruppenfoto Brasilien 850 0016.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2018 at 06:07:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created by Granada - uploaded by Granada - nominated by Granada -- Granada (talk) 06:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The upcoming world champion 2018 ;) It's not perfectly shot from the center of the line-up, but imagine a soccer game where dozens of photographers want to get hold of this group shot, but not everyone can stand in the first row. And then try to anticipate where the center of the group will be beforehand. So I'm very happy with this image shot from the first row and just 1m from the center. I've uploaded it directly after the match and it's already been shared in the news (with a perfect attribution) -- Granada (talk) 06:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Normally, whenever you see a shot like this on Commons, you can bet your ass that it's a copyright violation :-P --El Grafo (talk) 08:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
+2 --Podzemnik (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* it's either a copyright violation or supported by WMAT ;) --Ailura (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Exclusive, unique and elitist. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Right place, right time, right settings. Charles (talk) 10:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per El Grafo and a BIG congratulations to you for getting such a photo! --Cart (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 10:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was going to protest the uniqueness of the image since the situation is fairly ordinary and there are millions of team photos on the web - it's not like this is a WC final or a famous team (yet) - but then I realized that as far as Commons are concerned, this is probably quite unique indeed.--Peulle (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 15:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great job Granada, thank you for your unique and valuable contributions for the project. --Podzemnik (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 18:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool Poc o² 20:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question Could someone explain why this photo is unique and notable? So far the comments all seem to be from the perspective of sports fanatics who know some special context. --Eve Teschlemacher (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Basically what Peulle said. It's a fairly standard team photo taken prior to a male international association football match. The context here is access to take such photos is highly restricted. Think photographers working for Reuters, AP, AFP etc. So it's rare in the context of Wikimedia Commons for such a photo not to be a copyright violation. -- KTC (talk) 23:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused about whether this is a famous team. Puelle said they're not famous. Granada implies they have a shot at being world champions (or was that a joke because they're actually nobodies?). Is this the national team from Brazil? If so, I'd assume that they'd be famous. —Eve Teschlemacher (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's the Brazil national team. What do you mean by famous? Individually, each of the players are well known, some of the best in the world etc., including one who is the world most expensive footballer by transfer fee. As a footballing nation, Brazil is one of the if not the most famous. But this particular group of players, they haven't won anything yet, it was just a friendly match. Compare to say a team photo taken at this match. -- KTC (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eve Teschlemacher: I think KTC summarized it fairly well, but just to clarify my own point, I'll elaborate. This is the real Brazil team, so they are famous, but they're not legendary. The 1974 Netherlands team with Cruyff, Neeskens, Rep etc. is legendary. The 1962 Brazil squad with Garrincha, Vavá and Pelé is legendary. This team is just the current Brazil squad and we don't know if they will reach such heights yet, meaning that an image of the squad might have less of a wow factor and be less "featurable" since there are literally millions of photos of national teams out there. It was also just a normal friendly match, not an image taken in an extraordinary situation. The reason this is still eligible for FP on Commons is that most images like these are taken by photographers who retain their copyrights and as such the images don't find their way to Commons. Remember, images with FP status are described as "some of the finest on Commons". Note: on Commons, not "on the web" or "in existence". Since there are so few of these images on Commons in the first place, that can make the image eligible for FP.--Peulle (talk) 09:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The comments are not from "sports fanatics" but from "copyright fanatics". --Cart (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --Podzemnik (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support J e e 01:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Patriccck (talk) 10:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:Caldera El Golfo 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2018 at 10:43:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Spain
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The horizon, at the sea, isn't level. I'm not sure the sharpness at 100% justifies uploading the 119MP stitch. Perhaps better to have a modest downsize (e.g. 75% size = 67MP) which will reward viewers who pan around the detailed panorama with a more pleasing image. At present, I just think this is just a big download for no extra reward. -- Colin (talk) 13:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Horizon corrected in both versions --Llez (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support either version is fine with me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think you need to offer the downsized version as an Alt and perhaps split the votes. I think it works fine, just that it exists as an "other version". Thank you for making it, it made it easier for me to view this. --Cart (talk) 17:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good composition, lights and colors what counts in photography --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 04:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 08:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Matthias Süßen (talk) 08:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martin.--Ermell (talk) 12:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the colors are very well captured. --Ximonic (talk) 11:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 12:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Difficult to vote as both versions have good supports. People need to choose one. :) J e e 02:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative (downsized)[edit]

Info Downsized version as proposed by Colin --Llez (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support either version is fine with me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Think this is more representative of the resolution captured and resulting after stitching process. -- Colin (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support either version. Daniel Case (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 11:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 12:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Caldera El Golfo 02.jpg

File:Schloss Gluecksburg msu 2018 -7111.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2018 at 13:13:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Germany
Info created by Matthias Süßen - uploaded by Matthias Süßen - nominated by Matthias Süßen -- Matthias Süßen (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Matthias Süßen (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cool use of natural framing, I like that! There's some purple fringing going on in the corners - shouldn't be too difficult to get rid of that in Lightroom? Also, I think this kind of picture should really be Geocoded. --El Grafo (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Compo and lighting are excellent! ~~CA is only a minor problem, imo - a "leaves against sky" situation is always prone to produce some CA.~~ --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: The new version got rid of the CAs... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 14:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@El Grafo: : thanks for the hints. I added geocordinates to the file and removed the purple. --Matthias Süßen (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely composition. :) --Peulle (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the framing. Charles (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely pic -- Colin (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P999 (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per others, very nice Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the few times I've seen it work to have some foliage between you and the subject. --Cart (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. Lovely. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice view, but the castle is unfortunately overexposed --A.Savin 00:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support thanks the improvements! --El Grafo (talk) 05:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Daniel Case (talk) 06:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree though that the highlights could be reduced a bit Poc o² 07:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @A.Savin and Poco a poco: Hmm. Please pardon the asking. I don't come here that often. How am I supposed to handle this? Those of you who have rated the picture as Pro have rated this version. And in that one the highlights have already been lowered. In this version I have additionally reduced the white tones. Personally, however, I prefer the version we are voting on here. --Matthias Süßen (talk) 08:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Matthias I'm not sure whether your "how am I supposed to handle this" was about handling the oppose votes, or handling the highlights. For the former, you can't always please everybody! Don't worry, your image looks certain to be promoted, though the presence of the one oppose means it won't be fast-track promoted after just 5 days, but will take the normal time. That's fine; don't worry about it. It is your image, your work of art, so don't feel pressured to make an image you don't like just to please one reviewer -- you might end up with something that other people don't like instead. Personally, I think we can sometimes be a bit too obsessed with avoiding blown or bright highlights, when they are quite natural. I'd expect a freshly painted white wall in full sun to be so bright white that I need sunglasses to comfortably look at it. Today's monitors don't have HDR retina-burning displays yet so all results will be a compromise. I strongly dislike when people reduce such glowing bright white to merely paper white. Comparing your two versions, I can see the other version's whites are off-white now, but there's no more detail recovered. So I agree with you that the nominated image is better. -- Colin (talk) 10:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Colin: Thanks for the tips. That's what I'm going to do. --Matthias Süßen (talk) 11:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - My opinion here, Matthias, is that you do what you thing is right. If you believe that a reviewer is right and you got a hint about how to improve the quality or composition of the picture, don't be afraid, and go aead. Important is that we help each other and the picture and photographers get better. The fact that the image will obviously be promoted to FP shouldn't be a reason not to improve it, if you think that a change would do. Only authors and reviewers here care about that star. Small improvemetns are always welcome any time. If you perform though bigger changes (like a new frame or major retouch of curves, contrast, lighting, etc.) then you should ping those who already voted (to let them review again) or offer an alterntive version. But IMHO that wouldn't be required in this case. Poc o² 20:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! --Ximonic (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 12:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 16:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 01:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. --Podzemnik (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 06:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 27 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bissendorf - Schelenburg - Wasserschloss -BT- 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2018 at 08:26:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Germany
Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 12:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shadow. Yann (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support the shadow can't be avoided and adds some drama to the composition. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Left tree shadow distracting --The Photographer 16:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above. Charles (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Martin. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't agree with blanket opposition to shadows, but this one distracts me, as does the tree, which partially blocks the castle. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martin. Daniel Case (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I think it's a decent picture. But I agree about the shadows. Not just that they are there but I think the shadows gain too much attention from the subject. This view would benefit from slight HDR process I suppose. The shadows would not be too dark. --Ximonic (talk) 11:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 11:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cordillera de Alaska desde Tok, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-29, DD 16-19 PAN.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2018 at 21:31:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States
Info Alaska Range from Tok, Alaska, United States. All by me, Poc o² 21:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 21:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Beautiful picture, but it seems to be curving downwards towards the right of the image. dllu (t,c) 22:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
dllu: I'm not sure what you mean. I was not parallel to the shore, so the right side is closer than the left side from the position I took the picture. I checked the tilt and looks fine to me sure. Could you add a note, please?Poc o² 20:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we look at the tallest mountain peak (which seems very far away, effectively at infinity), then the distance from the peak to the top of the image is longer than the distance from the peak's reflection to the bottom of the image. It seems this can be fixed by rotating the image 0.4 degrees counterclockwise around the middle of the left edge. dllu (t,c) 21:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Whatever, it's not a huge deal. Maybe it's an optical illusion. dllu (t,c) 06:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

dllu: Finally I applied a slight tilt along with other minor improvements (crop, WB, curves) Poc o² 09:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Granada (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is very beautiful picture. --Patriccck (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reminds me of this. --Cart (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish I had a cabin there. --Podzemnik (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like File:Cordillera de Alaska desde Tok, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-29, DD 20-27 PAN.jpg better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Will not get angry, Ikan, if you propose that, as well :) Poc o² 20:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to, but I'm concerned people might find the two photos too similar. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That one is quite nice, but its sky is blown out. I like this picture much better. dllu (t,c) 21:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Kruusamägi (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Frhdkazan (talk) 06:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 11:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Petr Lexa 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2018 at 19:55:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/People#Events_(Arts,_concerts,_shows...)
Info created by Patriccck - uploaded by Patriccck - nominated by Patriccck, all by Patriccck -- Patriccck (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Patriccck (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not judging the quality yet, but I am of the opinion that these two images are too similar. As a consequence, only one of them can be FP.--Peulle (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's because it's the same image. The page say "Petr Lexa 2", but the image showing is "Slza 3", same as the other one. -- KTC (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @KTC: Should be fixed now … --El Grafo (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not extraordinary, e.g. the mouth of the frontman is covered by the microphone, view upwards, etc. Also not the best moment, as he is not singing. --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Uoaei1, not a good perspective, nothing impressive about the scene (lights, movement, set, expression). --Trougnouf (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. A good photo to include in the montage on the back of the album, but not an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 03:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plaza Mayor de Santa Ana, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, May 2018.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2018 at 16:32:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Spain
Info Plaza Mayor de Santa Ana and City Hall, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, as seen atop the Cathedral of Santa Ana. When heading towards the city I kept hoping for the clouds to miraculously disappear - only to realize that this dramatic pre-rain blanket of clouds helps create a special mood that is rather picturesque in its own way. All by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Weather, composition ...--The Photographer 16:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the weather is a matter of taste, but please do elaborate on your issues with the composition, The Photographer. Thanks --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO composition is centered, not remarcable main subject, btw, tilt --The Photographer 18:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think the composition is fine, but the light is a bit flat, a bit dull. Not very exciting. --Peulle (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perhaps even threatening clouds thicken slightly.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The hills with all the houses, looking very much like some crazy piles of LEGO, make the picture. :) Different, fresh. --Cart (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dull light. Charles (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like. Not sure it would have been better with sunny weather (sun = shadows). --A.Savin 21:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Alex. The sky looks very much like ours in this Monsoon season! :) J e e 03:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very drab, doesn't excite me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice view and good quality, but I agree with Ikan. In the picture there is some dynamic thank to the perspective but I'd tried to emphasize that with a wider angle view in order to have the feeling that I'm surrounded by those 2 rows of houses. Poc o² 08:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Info Addressing the issues mentioned above, I've tried to increase clarity and brightness of the image's lower half (the city). The lighting should be less drab now. As far as a wider angle is concerned, well, I'd have preferred a bit more space on both sides as well, but some protruding elements of the church's facade (i.e. ugly stones) prevented me from getting any - pinging: The Photographer, Peulle, Famberhorst, Cart, Charles, A.Savin, Michielverbeek, J e e, Johann Jaritz, Ikan Kekek, Poc o² --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still not for me. Charles (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue to me is the perspective, I would have enjoyed it from a lower point of view, not sure whether just pitching down the camera would have made it. Poc o² 16:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry. The weather is not a problem (clouds are nice), but I think we have too much sky and not enough plaza (Composition issue). Not a bad picture, but not FP for me.--Jebulon (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Alex. Empty bue sky could also be dull. --Milseburg (talk) 12:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Peulle. --Karelj (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would prefer lower camera angle to get more of the plaza. Lighting is flat. Nothing particularly special to merit FP status. —Eve Teschlemacher (talk) 06:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Slza 03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2018 at 19:55:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/People#Events_(Arts,_concerts,_shows...)
Info created by Patriccck - uploaded by Patriccck - nominated by Patriccck, all by Patriccck -- Patriccck (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Patriccck (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not judging the quality yet, but I am of the opinion that these two images are too similar. As a consequence, only one of them can be FP.--Peulle (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I moved the page and I changed the file. --Patriccck (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose not impressive. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 11:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Moheen. The face of the frontman is covered by the microphone, etc. --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Uoaei1, and the perspective is way off. --Trougnouf (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Trougnouf. Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Laurier Quebec mall, Québec city.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2018 at 23:21:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info All by -- The Photographer 23:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Major stitching errors on, for example, the horizontal beams above. dllu (t,c) 00:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done Please add more examples. --The Photographer 00:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found two more :) --Podzemnik (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks --The Photographer 01:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I've changed the FP category as this is Places/Interiors, not Architecture/Cityscapes. The overall scene is too dark, and don't think people walking round the mall would experience it that gloomy. I appreciate it is hard to handle the exposure range here, but many of our FP interiors do. The eye catches the central monitor advertisement, which is blown. You can see from the top two revisions of File:King's Cross Western Concourse.jpg that even a single exposure DSLR photo can recover that sort of brightness. The EXIF aperture f/2.8 and the relatively low resolution for a stitch makes me suspect this was taken with a mobile phone? If so, well done, but I don't think the quality reaches the standards for Places/Interiors at FP. -- Colin (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Podzemnik and User:Dllu please can you apply any Notes using the tool on this FP candidate page and not directly on the file page. See Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#Notes on a photo, Help:Gadget-ImageAnnotator#Local annotations and Commons:Image annotations. -- Colin (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't has more quality of it because it was taken using a cheaper Chinese very compact camera Yi. --The Photographer 11:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin Right, sorry for that, I deleted my notes. --Podzemnik (talk) 13:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The issues Colin identified need to be addressed. Daniel Case (talk) 03:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd like to be able to support. Can you make edits that deal with at least some of his points? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: IMHO has a dslr camera not should be a requeriment in FPC, it's allready a formal Quality Image on commons. I don't underestand, objectively, FPC quality requeriments --The Photographer 02:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're judging the image, not the camera. Cart takes FP's with a 1"-sensor compact camera all the time, but the tiny sensor in most compact and phone cameras will struggle to compete at FP -- I think we have a few that were taken outdoors in great light. FP is for the "finest on Commons" and the Places/Interiors category is full of technically very fine photos, many of which are super sharp and detailed and also handle the dynamic range seen in interiors. You wouldn't expect such a camera to compete at FP for macro or bird photography either. -- Colin (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm impressed with this photo, but you do have a lot of tough competition in the interiors category, so why don't you tweak the photo so that there is no longer a blown area, for example. And was the mall actually brighter in general? If it was, you could work on that, too, right? Anyway, looking for an objective set of criteria that automatically result in passing at FPC doesn't work when "wow" is one of them, and I think you would agree. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:The ruins of a mill in Espoo, Finland.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2018 at 14:54:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Finland
Info created by JKorpimies - uploaded by JKorpimies - nominated by JKorpimies -- JKorpimies (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JKorpimies (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. --Cart (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fontana di Trevi columns.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2018 at 03:23:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice level of details, however the perspective distortion is disturbing. Yann (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann: no verticals or horizontals are vertical or horizontal, and they don't seem deliberately diagonal in a pleasing way. Storkk (talk) 11:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs a perspective correction, (mainly) I don't think it's a notably interesting composition, and I would expect it to be shot in the best technical conditions (on a tripod with minimum ISO) since it's a static easily accessible and commonly photographed scene. --Trougnouf (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perhaps it could one day be a VI as an excellent illustration of the Corinthian order, but not an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 05:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Slza 3.jpg

File:Припратата на црквата „Св. Ѓорѓи“ во Будинарци.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2018 at 07:24:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Architectural elements
Info created by Petrovskyz - uploaded by Petrovskyz - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If the bell is the subject, it is partial hidden and badly lit. The rest is blurry. Yann (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann.--Peulle (talk) 09:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iglesia de San Juan Bautista, Ágreda, Soria, España, 2018-03-29, DD 43-45 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2018 at 12:48:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Main nave of the church of John the Baptist, Ágreda, province of Soria, Castile and León, Spain. The originally Romanesque church (visible in its portal) was built in the second half of the 12th century and reworked in the 16th century with Gothic, Renaissance and Baroque elements. All by me, Poc o² 12:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 12:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Granada (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 07:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Patriccck (talk) 09:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question What's going on with that cord the light is hanging from? Does it look like that naturally? Daniel Case (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel: I see no problem with that wire. When I saw you comment I thought that it could be due to the long exposure of one of the frames, but I see not such an issue. If you wonder why the wire is not perferctly vertical it's because it is a metal wire that doesn't get straight by its own weight. This picture is made of 3 frames with different exposure but no stitching or editing that could cause that. Poc o² 09:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support OK, that explains it. Daniel Case (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ruine Aggstein 20180527.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2018 at 13:10:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Austria
Info Castle ruins of Aggstein, Wachau, Lower Austria. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wouldn't put the castle in the middle. Charles (talk)

per Charles but weak support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent work.--Ermell (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful, excellent! -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Captivating, I would like to go there ! Tournasol7 (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice castle, but too much shadows & too harsh contrast, a pity. --A.Savin 02:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exceptional quality, very nice composition! Light condition could be a little better where I understand the point made out by A.Savin. However, for me the other things make me go for a support. --Ximonic (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit hazy in the very distant background but outstanding nearby.--Milseburg (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Overcomes the haze by being so big and detailed. Daniel Case (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. Beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per others. Nice one --Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 08:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Because of the shadows -- Llez (talk) 10:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Golden Gate Bridge and San Francisco skyline from Hawk Hill at Blue Hour dllu.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2018 at 22:23:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges, Category:Featured pictures of the Golden Gate Bridge
Info created by dllu - uploaded by dllu - nominated by Dllu -- dllu (t,c) 22:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- dllu (t,c) 22:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. I like that you can see the other bridges in the background. (BTW I thought Godzilla ate this bridge long ago?) :D --Peulle (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ahh, very nice view! If there is something to point out, I think it is a little soft image maybe because of the noise reduction. --Ximonic (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the softness comes from strong wind causing the tripod to vibrate a little bit. There may also be some heat distortion due to the atmosphere, which I saw in a photo a few hours earlier with a 200mm lens. dllu (t,c) 17:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Milseburg (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit soft, but great shot. --Granada (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 16:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose OK photo, but we have 18 FPs of the bridge already and this isn't better than most i.e. it's not one of the finest. Charles (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles. --Eve Teschlemacher (talk) 06:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 10:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Patriccck (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support contra Charles, I think it stands up well among the other FPs of the Golden Gate bridge, and is the only one that has the lit city as a backdrop. It's significantly better (IMO) than the only other comparable one, File:San Francisco with two bridges and the low fog.jpg. Storkk (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. When we have so many FPs of the Golden Gate Bridge, any new one really has to bring something fresh to the table. High resolution could definitely be a factor, yes, but 56 MP with poor pixel-level sharpness just isn't going to cut it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to my eyes the pixel level sharpness isn't any worse than existing FPs, such as File:Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco, California LCCN2013633353.tif. dllu (t,c) 02:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Maarja Nuut Viljandi folgil 2016.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2018 at 00:51:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created & uploaded by Vaido Otsar - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 06:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 07:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Evocative. I expect English text in the description for FP photos, though - might wanna think about adding that.--Peulle (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done Kruusamägi (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This darkness just does not work for me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really striking image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you add English descritpion please. Like who is it and where at least. Thank you! --Podzemnik (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice creative touch...Atsme 📞 16:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Personality rights template shall protect which person?--Ermell (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since the person is identified by name and her performance is probably recognizable to her friends, family and fans, it is right to add the template. "Better safe than sorry". --Cart (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, she is a relatively well known singer perfoming on a stage in one of the biggest music festivals in Estonia. So I don't really see how that applies here. :) Kruusamägi (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 08:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is special Poc o² 20:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Patriccck (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Panoramic view of Estaing 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2018 at 23:03:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#France
Info created by Tournasol7 - uploaded by Tournasol7 - nominated by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tournasol7 (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support great view! A tiny perspective correction might improve the image even further - there's also a hint of CA. But fine for me anyway --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martin --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For me it seems there is a slight upward curve on the "horizon" line (which you obviously can't see because of the hills). However it is visible on the buildings vertical lines which are leaning slightly outwards from the image, especially on the right side of the picture. It's a good panoramic however. --Ximonic (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 16:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wall bottom right is off-putting. Charles (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 08:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 10:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Patriccck (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per Charlesjsharp, I think cropping off the bottom ~11% would be significantly better. Storkk (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:20180610 FIFA Friendly Match Austria vs. Brazil Miranda 850 0051.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2018 at 05:59:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created by Granada - uploaded by Granada - nominated by Granada -- Granada (talk) 05:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Finally a real sports photo again. João Miranda squeezing the ball while heading it back to the playfield. Granada (talk) 05:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great team. Super match. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose super match is not an argument. Too poor quality for a FI for me. Olivier LPB (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I want more sharpness on the Brazilian since he's the main subject. Here it looks like the focus was on the player on the right.--Peulle (talk) 10:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great sport picture. --Yann (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination was withdrawn, dude ... :P --Peulle (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes a post-withdraw support can prompt a user to re-open the nom. Such votes serves a purpose, dude. --Cart (talk) 13:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if it would be a good idea to reopen this nom. After closing I've uploaded a downscaled Version as I am stil convinced that it is a good shot hit in the perfect moment despite some missing sharpness. --Granada (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would support the original nom, if you'd like to unwithdraw it. I find it an exciting shot and a good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Isiwal (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support More sports/activity photos, please. J e e 01:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Granada, please don't upload a downsampled version over the original version. As per Commons:Image guidelines, "Images should not be downsampled (sized down) in order to appear of better quality. Downsampling reduces the amount of information stored in the image file." Even if the picture is slightly soft (e.g. due to moving subjects), just ignore the pixel-peeping haters. dllu (t,c) 08:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Patriccck (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support As long as both the original and downsampled versions are present and available, which they are, I don't really care in which order they are uploaded. They exist on the file's page. I suspect Granada might be sick and tired of all comments and discussions about size vs sports photos and all, yet again. ;) --Cart (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Peulle Charles (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:Kjæret boligeiendom.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2018 at 07:46:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Norway
Info We have had quite a few different images coming up for nomination recently and I've been wondering what you guys will think of this one, so I thought I'd put it up and see if you get the same emotional impression I do; it's a house from the early 1800s located in a picturesque small town in the south of Norway. All by Peulle.
Support -- Peulle (talk) 07:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as someone who's taken a lot of pictures like this, it just isn't special enough. Daniel Case (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. Very good QI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kokořín, tunel pod hradem.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2018 at 16:01:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Aktron – uploaded by Aktron – nominated by Draceane — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 16:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 16:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose - Very nice motif, but I'd suggest cropping out the bit of staircase on the right, and the light could be better. I'm also slightly bugged by the highlight in the upper center. I might be willing to reconsider if the crop is made and there is a little work done on the sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose As per Ikan Kekek. I would change my vote if current picture is cropped. Gnosis (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support on cropping the stair out. Daniel Case (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The curve is cropped and my eyes want to see the entire road. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Patriccck (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan and Gnosis. Just a small crop would improve the image. These stairs are disturbing -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pride NYC 2017 (51839).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2018 at 05:15:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events (Arts, concerts, shows...)
Info June is LGBT Pride Month, commemorating the Stonewall Riots, and I find myself looking through pictures from last year's parade in New York City. I keep coming back to this guy, doing his own thing by himself in the parade, facing up into the sun with this jubilant and unselfconscious expression that seems to fit the occasion really well. One of those images where I really don't know if others will think it worthy of FP, but if I'm going to nominate it, this is the month to do it. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject itself is great, but the background is pretty busy and a bit distracting. That's of course difficult to avoid in a parade … I'll have to think about this for a bit. Just wanted to let you know that apparently one of your edits removed the EXIF data from the file (the first version still has it) --El Grafo (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. For some reason Lightroom retains EXIF but as soon as I put it through Photoshop it disappears. I'll restore it manually. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done Looks like by using Photoshop's "Export" command I was stripping EXIF (and also reducing dpi!). Using the standard "save as" fixed it. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree with you, this guy sticks in your mind with the pride and energy he exudes. Subject is sufficiently isolated from the background and since you spot more of the parade, he is placed in context. Otherwise he might look like a lone nut-job. --Cart (talk) 09:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. He stands out from the crowd to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Granada (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition not FP for me. Charles (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 16:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fortunately, « ridiculous does not kill », as we say in french.--Jebulon (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice atmosphere... --Karelj (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cart's got a point there … --El Grafo (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not special enough for me. Yann (talk) 10:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann --George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others.--Ermell (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Patriccck (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:A wedge on a newly constructed support for preassure tanks 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2018 at 19:54:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Tools
Info Still life with shadow play, my way. ;) C, u, n, -- Cart (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me, not an FP composition. Charles (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I almost expected this nom. With pictures like this one it's not always easy to see the veeery thin line between something all too banal and something really interesting. For me, this image works for two reasons: a) the lighting (side light) b) the careful composition (especially the diagonals). --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that the golden evening light and the resulting blue shadows gives it more than 'fifty shades of grey'. --Cart (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per Martin. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not really special for me. Yann (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I understand that this image is not for everyone but it works for me. Composition, colors and lights are smooth and calming even though the materials are all cold. --Podzemnik (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martin. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the lines, the abstraction, and the textures. Daniel Case (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, this image is not talking to me Poc o² 20:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A bit confusing.--Ermell (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I kind of see the ceci n'est pas une cale idea, but it still doesn't quite seem special enough. dllu (t,c) 21:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've been on the fence about whether it's special enough, but I guess I think it is. Nice still life per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Charles --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bridge leading to Dam hole at Thatipudi dam.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2018 at 15:15:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by IM3847 - uploaded by IM3847 - nominated by IM3847 -- IM3847 (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IM3847 (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh light, technical quality could be better. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Good motif but oppose per Basotxerri. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Unfortunately it is very, very hard to get the quality we want for an FP using a phone camera. It has been done, but you probably need to download some image editing program for final fixes. --Cart (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 07:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basotxerri.--Peulle (talk) 07:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, IMO quality is not good enough. --XRay ^talk 07:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of all these opposes with no new supports. Daniel Case (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baker Beach 2.jpg (delist), delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2018 at 22:55:43

Info Compared to other photos in Category:Featured pictures of the Golden Gate Bridge, this one is slightly less good both technically and compositionally. Technically, the photo is underexposed, low-resolution, and has vignetting. Compositionally, it has mundane lighting and uninteresting foreground, making it not as good as File:Golden Gate Bridge as seen from Marshall’s Beach, October 2017.jpg. (Original nomination)
Delist -- dllu (t,c) 22:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- Eve Teschlemacher (talk) 05:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Peulle (talk) 06:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist yeah, sorry, but it's really not among the best of the best any more. --El Grafo (talk) 08:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Charles (talk) 09:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 12:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Basotxerri (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- rather average for today's supply on Commons. --A.Savin 15:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per others. Daniel Case (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Patriccck (talk) 10:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Kruusamägi (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can not see that the picture has deteriorated over the years. I do not think that it is necessary to weigh up two pictures of such different age. By the way: The wrong fog that seems like this through the long exposure, is not ideal in the other picture in my eyes.--Milseburg (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 11 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --A.Savin 00:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cleistocactus strausii (70387).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2018 at 22:49:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Cactaceae
Info Cleistocactus strausii is a "wooly torch" cactus, with dark red flowers that jut out horizontally. One of the things I like about this one is the sharpness (unavoidable pun) of the spines. Also, as a bonus, I have never seen a cactus look so much like a bird. :) all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I said "I have never seen a cactus look so much like a bird." Looking at the FP category, I see that in 2013 we have promoted another picture of the same species with some [rather creepy] birdlike qualities! I see in that one there was a suggestion to brighten it. We will see if that is echoed here -- brightening is definitely possible, although the brighter it is the more detail will be lost at the base of the spines. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Lighting is very flat, resemblance to bird is mildly amusing but composition is not Wow. -- Eve Teschlemacher (talk) 05:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above. Charles (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is one of those cases when you could experiment with using a fill-in forced flash (if you have one) on one or two photos. Try it sometime, if the ambient light is this good, you will not get harsh shadows. I'm always amazed how subtle such a flash can be even if it feels like it lights up the whole room. --Cart (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This I do not understand. I look at the image that was featured and does look to have been taken with a flash, and I see less detail/clarity than in this one, and I have a hard time imagining how a flash would be an improvement. Maybe I've just never used a good flash or known how to use one. New version uploaded - I just went back and brightened the subject in Lightroom and uploaded a new version. Presumably this is not what's being recommended here? If not, could someone link to a good example of a white subject made clearer using a flash? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have a flash used in this, this and I used a flash directly on the birch in this. These are some that I could come up with right away, there are probably more/better examples out there. I think flashes are more in sync with cameras these days. Using a flash is a new tool in your camera box, it takes a bit getting used to as do all new photo things. :) Not so long ago you had no idea about CA or stacking, and look at you now! :) I thought I'd plant this seed in your curious mind. --Cart (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I do need to experiment with it more, it's true. In this case, I remain mystified how this is preferable to the current image, and skeptical (glibly, likely) that a flash would produce something preferable to simply amplifying existing light in post-processing. If the tastes of FPC are such that the other image is deemed superior, then it is a standard I'm not inclined to aspire to, for better or worse. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the specimen goes, yours is way better. :) The think a flash could have done for you here, is put a bit if sparkle in the needles and bring out the definition of the green/grey/brown plant texture of the cactus skin. It would also have lifted the shadow where the "beak" joins the main plant and made the red a bit more prominent. --Cart (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did some work on it, yours if you want it. Cheers, --Cart (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I'll take a closer look when I'm on my desktop. Based on how this nom has gone so far, I suspect there's not a version of this image that would be featured, but maybe I'll try it again sometime down the line. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support You so want to pet it, but you wouldn't ... Daniel Case (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Patriccck (talk) 10:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately this nomination reminds me this unsuccessful one Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Pipe_couplings_on_a_pressure_tank_under_construction.jpg, to which I opposed too because the illusion is not obvious enough -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the illusion isn't the basis for the nomination. :) I just think it's a high quality depiction of an unusual-looking species -- that it looks a bit like a bird makes it kind of fun, but I wouldn't nominate it just on that basis. Not expecting this to change anyone's mind -- this clearly isn't going to pass either way. Just want to be clear about my motivation. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 00:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chirk Castle gates.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2018 at 18:57:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects#Doors
Info created by DeFacto - uploaded by DeFacto - nominated by DeFacto -- -- DeFacto (talk). 18:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -- DeFacto (talk). 18:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Shame it's too late to enter it in the monthly challenge.--Peulle (talk) 10:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Frhdkazan (talk) 07:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 09:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 12:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very pretty. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clear shot. --Podzemnik (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Podzemnik: , remember to sign your !vote. Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: Oh lala, thank you! --Podzemnik (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support And why did I forget to !vote, too? Daniel Case (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 19:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Iceland's Mid-Atlantic Ridge during snow.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2018 at 20:31:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Iceland
Info A shot taken from a plane over one of Iceland's mountain ranges. All by me -- Bharel (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bharel (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks very nice but it needs denoising and it's not well categorized. --Trougnouf (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tbh, I didn't even notice the noise. Good catch. I've applied a VERY small denoise filter, in order to leave the sharpness as is. Trougnouf, tell me if you believe I need a little bit more denoising or whether I've hurt the sharpness too much. Bharel (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Took care of categorizing, changing it's name to be more descriptive too (managed to find the exact mountain range by comparing with other photos taken on the plane a few minutes before and after).Bharel (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great job on the mountain range identification. The mountains look good but the sky is still noisy, you should filter it separately. There is also posterization on the right of the sky where it turns from dark blue to lighter blue to pink/purple to gray. (very visible between the two dark blobs I just annotated and the small cloud left of them) --Trougnouf (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How do you find those blobs? Regarding the posterization, it took me a few minutes to see that. Apparently it doesn't show up on Lightroom but only in the final product (might be due to small jpeg artifacts)? I'm currently trying different export settings. Bharel (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Trougnouf, seems like it was ProPhoto RGB. Changing to ~~Adobe RGB~~ sRGB removed the posterization and most of the artifacts. I'm not entirely sure how does it work, but it worked. Bharel (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot better. I think modern browsers still don't take color profiles into account. There is still a significant amount of noise in the sky. The last two blobs are still a little bit visible and there seems to be another one (dark spot) on the bottom-right of the central cloud. I look at QIC/FPC pictures at 200% of my (1080p) monitor and expect no visible flaw then, it might help to look at it on different monitors as the blobs are nearly invisible on my TN screen but jump at me on the IPS one. --Trougnouf (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I actually reduced noise filter on bottom, added a little bit on top and resampled dust spots. Removal of more noise results in a soft picture and (apart from the uniform parts of the sky,) I believe the details are more important in here. Is there anything else you believe can improve the picture? (Don't have any available IPS screen nearby so do tell if you think there's something more to fix ) Bharel (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, I don't see dark blobs or posterization → Support --Trougnouf (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why thank you my friend, I highly appreciate it :) Bharel (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Big wow. :) I like that you can see that road snaking along the landscape. And the light is lovely on the left. --Peulle (talk) 10:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Frhdkazan (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 09:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Storkk (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's a really good photo from an airplane! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Great view but there is room for improvement in processing (too noisy) Poc o² 19:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What do you have in mind? I'm not entirely sure how to remove noise without hurting the sharpness. Bharel (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Peulle -- P999 (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Unidentified ceiling in Panam Nagar (01).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2018 at 21:40:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created by Moheen Reeyad - uploaded by Moheen Reeyad - nominated by Moheen Reeyad -- ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 21:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 21:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really like this but ... it's kind of unsharp at the edges (where the cornice is) and there's some CA. Daniel Case (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not sharp enough for a ceiling FP. The standard for ceiling FPs is really high. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vitascope.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2018 at 21:53:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Edison Vitascope Company - uploaded by Andibrunt - nominated by Moheen Reeyad -- ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 21:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 21:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely historical artwork. Stuff like this just doesn't get made anymore. --Peulle (talk) 10:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Peulle. The print is in great condition, so it doesn't need digital restoration. The condition of the white paper around the print isn't that important. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. Daniel Case (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eastern black-and-white colobus (Colobus guereza matschiei) head.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2018 at 10:37:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simply great! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support This reminds me to somebody I know --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Color noise on white wool, especially on the neck. Fixable? -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, having seen File:Abyssinian black-and-white colobus (Colobus guereza guereza) male head.jpg, I think the dull light here with the resulting blue WB plus color noise and lack of detail in some parts, makes this not measuring up to FP. The light blobs in the background are also a bit disturbing. --Cart (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Cart. Yann (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I do think the other photo is better, mainly in my view because of the background. However, I love this monkey's facial expression, and that's sufficient for me to support. If you'd like to go some distance toward addressing the others' objections, that would probably only improve the photo, but it's good enough to get my support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Common blue butterfly (Polyommatus icarus) male underside.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2018 at 10:18:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magnificent! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice only in thumb size, but blurred, many details are lost, especially on the wings -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per George --A.Savin 15:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Patriccck (talk) 10:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per George. Daniel Case (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fundación César Manrique - Park wall.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2018 at 10:56:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 10:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 10:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You've got some weird processing problem with the edges of the photo. Think it happened when you enlarged the canvas. -- Colin (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Thank you for the hint, I had overlooked it --Llez (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lovely colors and well detailed, but there are so many things to look at that I can't really settle on a subject. Daniel Case (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What do you expect to see I a garden? "Many things to look at" --Llez (talk) 06:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel, the composition is too jumbled. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Llez (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Templo Yanasen, Ayutthaya, Tailandia, 2013-08-23, DD 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2018 at 15:55:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info Yanasen Temple, Ayutthaya, Thailand. Created and uploaded by Diego Delso - nominated by Subhrajyoti07 (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Subhrajyoti07 (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Excellent motif, but I don't love the light, and the background in the lower right distracts my eye. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've reworked it a bit and developed it with the latest Lr version, Ikan (light and background is the same, of course). In any case, thank you Subhrajyoti07 for the nom! Poc o² 19:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. No change in my vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose lighting. Charles (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Charles and Ikan. Yann (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles and Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Puerto de Opakua - Paisaje -BT- 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2018 at 19:08:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Spain
Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, no wow for me --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Certainly a nice land (and sky) scape and a good QI, and I could imagine an excellent painting on this motif, and possibly an FP, if the sky were even that much more interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Michielverbeek. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tower in Uptown, Saanich, British Columbia, Canada 05.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2018 at 19:56:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
Info All by me. Just another tower you know. -- Podzemnik (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC) The hexagon-shaped tower is on top of an elevetar going down to underground garages in Uptown, Saanich, Canada. The whole structure can be foound here. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image is cool enough for me to support, but I'd want a bit more info - specifically about what building the tower is on. "Just another tower" isn't accurate enough for FP.--Peulle (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, sorry for that. I just read a comment like "just another view of a tower from the bottom" in other old FPC candidate :) I've added the description. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Peulle (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Of course! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think I'd like a little more room on the bottom, but that's a beautiful tower and very well photographed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I gave it a bit more space on the bottom. --Podzemnik (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The photo seems to be oversharpened with a bright edge around every dark object, and the effect is visible both at full size and at thumbnail size (this seems to be the case with all your night photos). I would recommend not using the "clarity" slider too much for this type of photo, as artifacts from that slider are particularly obvious against the smooth sky. I am also not sure about the composition. It seems to be not quite centered, but not sufficiently off-center for an interesting asymmetric composition. dllu (t,c) 08:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you dllu, what's you're saying is really valuable to me. I actually don't use the clarity almost at all but yes, the bright edge was caused by using too much of sharpening. It seems like night photos don't handle as much sharpening as day photos. And yeah, the composition was somewhere in the middle - I tried to give it a bit more space. Do you think it's better? And thanks again for your comment, I'm basically starting with a night photography and every advice is welcome. --Podzemnik (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Patriccck (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Weird angle doesn't add anything for me (I like this one better), and the subject itself, while perhaps interestingly decorated, doesn't have any wow for me. Sorry. Storkk (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, thank you for the vote anyway. --Podzemnik (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support While the other image looks pretty cool too, if the creator thinks more of this one it's good enough that I will defer to his judgement. Daniel Case (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support For me the interplay of the blue and yellow and black gives me a Wow feeling every time, which finally trumped concerns about the angle. —Eve Teschlemacher (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 04:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Obra de Teatro Don Quijote en el Teatro Teresa Carreño.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2018 at 00:09:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events_(Arts,_concerts,_shows...)
Info Theatrical Artwork by Laura Fiorucci. Picture, uploaded by Wilfredor -- The Photographer 00:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer 00:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting, but why so much black background? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To create the sentimental effect of solitude like if god is not there --The Photographer 10:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With this explanation, I find it compelling, but without it, I didn't get it. So in order for me to support, I'd need for this explanation to be in the file's description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Patriccck (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hermosos colores, gracias, Laura Fiorucci (talk) 12:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Fiorucci gracias a ti por permitirme tomar fotos de tu obra. --The Photographer 22:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the starkness. Daniel Case (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support And please do not crop the photograph. --XRay ^talk 05:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support after some consideration... but yes! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martin. It seems that after a while, your eyes adjust to the darkness. ;) Cart (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very interesting shot, but the quality for the darker characters is off-putting. And too much black for my taste. Charles (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non static scene, in a low light condition interior and a Nikon D300. Of course it has noise, IMHOW aceptable. --The Photographer 22:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Surprised to see such a big black surface, I wondered what was the reason. Artistic purpose ? Looking at the history, this huge crop seems quite risky and not really calculated, unfortunately. I would certainly have tolerated a large crop here around the people, but definitely not so disproportionately extended. That's excessive -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#Events_(Arts,_concerts,_shows...)

File:IPM Group "Trilogy".jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2018 at 11:15:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by User: Sputnik
Oppose I don't think the technical quality is good enough for an FP.--Peulle (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: as per Peulle. Yann (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Andkjelvatnet seen from Durmålstinden summit.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2018 at 11:56:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Frankemann - uploaded by Frankemann - nominated by Frankemann -- Frankemann (talk) 11:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Frankemann (talk) 11:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's beautiful, and thank you for having a sharp foreground. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question Colors seem a little wonky to me... particularly saturation of yellow, and perhaps blue. Is this some kind of atmospheric or optical effect, or were sliders involved? Storkk (talk) 09:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Storkk, what does really "sliders" mean? I used a polarizing filter. The picture is taken north of the polar circle, and the light is said to be different up there than elsewhere. Kind regards --Frankemann (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hej där! "Sliders" är det engelska ordet för de knappar och kontroller som man styr inställningarna med i ett bildbehandlingsprogram som till exempel Photoshop. Dom kallas så för att dom liksom glider på ett spår. Det har alltså bara att göra med efterbehandlingen av bilden och inte vilka tillbehör du hade på själva kameran. Ha det gott, --Cart (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wi nøt trei a holiday in Sweden this jër?

Daniel Case (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jo ar ålväjs velkom her, just giv mi ä kål. --Cart (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cart, thanks for explanation! Have tried such Image Manipulation Programs, but this has not been the subject of this. Also thanks to Daniel Case for explanation about Arctic light conditions. Funny, it's this kind of light I'm most used to. Kind regards --Frankemann (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tozina (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm OK with the colors. Daniel Case (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I should also say, having done my share of landscape shots in soft Arctic light, that yes, this looks authentic to me. Daniel Case (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Okeydokey, I was waiting for Daniel's view on this since I know he has some experience with such photos. I mean, I've been up far north, but that has always been during winter when you can't really do anything but night photography. --Cart (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of my Ivvavik pictures, this seems the most similar to me, although with less haze. The rock does sort of have a similar cast. The colors of the landscape, although I'm sure the underlying geology is different, seem right to me in this picture.

At a similar latitude, the landscapes of Sarek National Park nearby in Sweden have always struck me as very similar photographically to Ivvavik, and that's another point of comparison. (I have decided, for that reason, that I ought to find a way to visit Sarek one day. Besides, it speaks so much of Swedes that they are such Trek fans that they named a national park for Spock's father . Daniel Case (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only seen Sarek in February, -32 C but spectacular auroras. --Cart (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 11:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P999 (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Blücher-Denkmal Bebelplatz 1961.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2018 at 19:30:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by Manfred Niermann - uploaded by Till Niermann - nominated by Till Niermann -- Till (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Till (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice old image, but not an FP for me; the building in the background is too dominating.--Peulle (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem Peulle, the building in the background is part of the historical context of when the statue was dissembled and the building was a ruin. It's an iconic photo from the days of the Cold War in which the "de-throned" man from the statue looks at the ruined city. Please compare with more recent photos in Category:Blücher-Denkmal (Berlin) where it looks very different. --Cart (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's part of the image but it's terribly rendered. That would be fine if it was just a background feature but it's not.--Peulle (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a film photo and you can't expect the same quality for that as with digital photos, even if this was made by a large(r) format camera (negative 6 x 6 cm, imagine a sensor that size...). --Cart (talk) 09:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

6x6cm is medium format

--Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops!

--Cart (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

6x6 should have very high resolution, even if it is an old photo. High quality 6x6 films easily resolve over 100 megapixels of detail [2]. Even for 1960 film I think it's still possible to get better quality. I think the problem here is with low quality scanning and digital postprocessing. dllu (t,c) 22:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point there about the scanner. Most normal film scanners are just made for normal 35 mm film, a 60 x 60 mm would require something else. The scanning function on a printer with scanner would not be enough. --Cart (talk) 12:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did use a flatbed scanner with a dedicated 6x6 negative holder, but I hat no interest in getting a 100 MB file, so I chose a lower resolution than technically possible. And no, probably there wouldn‘t have been a gain in quality. --Till (talk) 05:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It can sometimes be advisable to do the scan at maximum, post-process it like that and then downsize it for publication. We did that when we scanned old glass plates at a museum and found out that was the best way to get it as sharp as possible. --Cart (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent composition. --Cart (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality too poor. Charles (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 04:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support but it is necessary to furnish a better description of the image (in german and in english) than the one given by the uploader. --Harlock81 (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I enhanced the descriptions. --Till (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Joséphine-Charlotte metro station platform, facing "Les oiseaux émerveillés" by Serge Vandercam in (Woluwe-Saint-Lambert, Belgium).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2018 at 13:16:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Belgium
Info I find this big empty underground box impressive, and I like the art behind it and its absurd placement where no angle can capture it entirely. by Trougnouf -- Trougnouf (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Trougnouf (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Cute and well-photographed, but not interesting enough to me to support for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A QI yes, but that pillar in front of the art keeps it from FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It looks more like a banal shot than an extraordinary picture unfortunately -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kuritiba muralo.jpeg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2018 at 13:55:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Brazil
Info created by NMaia - uploaded by NMaia - nominated by NMaia -- ~★ nmaia ^d 13:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ~★ nmaia ^d 13:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, Does not meet Quality Image criteria by far. --A.Savin 14:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Patriccck (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin. You might want to read COM:PT for some guidance about how an image is made to be up to FP level. --Cart (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin. -- KTC (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is not one of the finest images on Commons. Not by a long shot.--Peulle (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Of its low quality, as noted in the above opposes. Daniel Case (talk) 04:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case: You can't add FPX if there are more than one support votes. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient quality, per A.Savin. --Trougnouf (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Light and composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Osteospermum ecklonis 03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2018 at 15:46:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales
Info created by Tournasol7 - uploaded by Tournasol7 - nominated by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tournasol7 (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We have lots of FP Asterales - it is a relatively easy, common and spectacular flower to photograph. I'm finding the magenta blob in the bottom left a little distracting, and think it could be cloned out. Overall it looks overcooked wrt processing -- too much contrast/saturation. Shame the right side is not continued green but earth or a path. -- Colin (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd suggest just cropping a bit on the left and then on the right to eliminate the isolated leaf in the lower right corner. Then I'd probably support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Purple rain on roof.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2018 at 17:27:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Storms
Info The rain came down very hard on a black roof, so my first thought was to just do this in B&W. But then the idea about making this in another monochrome color popped up, and there is really only one other color suited for rain. ;) The filter used was set to the shade that the Pantone Color Institute developed in honor of Prince. I have no idea if using other monochrome filter goes against the rules of FPC in some way, guess we're about to find out. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I enjoy this. And of course it has an obligatory soundtrack... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice, but educational value? Yann (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this discussion has popped up so many times (even on one of your own noms) that we should know it by now, but here goes: Educational value is not a requirement for FP, see FP General rules # 7 "Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects. This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project.". If you look though the PTOY categories, you will find a lot of just artistic images. --Cart (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not suitable for WM, OK, but yet some educational value is a requirement for FP. So Oppose Yann (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yann: Well, I could argue that there is probably some article that could use a photo of falling rain or that it could illustrate the color mentioned in the file description or a photo article about different filters or to illustrate monochrome images. There are several places where it could have educational value if you insist on an FP needing such, I just didn't think I would have to bring it up since it isn't an issue per previous discussion mentioned above. As long as you have some imagination, there are always articles where a photo can be used. --Cart (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All photos on Commons must have some educational value, otherwise you should open a DR. I do think educational value is a quality we look for at FP, along with technical and artistic qualities. (The requirements mention we seek "valuable pictures" more than just pretty pictures, and this is an educational media repository, so I think it is fairly obvious what we should value). A photo with all three is a winner and a photo that is deficient in one of them inclines one towards negative voting. We all differ in our judgement of these three qualities and having wow in one of them can compensate. What isn't a requirement for FP is encyclopaedic value, which implies the image would be useful to illustrate the lead of an article at Wikipedia, or that the image is itself must be a source of encyclopaedic information. Instead, I think a wide variety of images can be used as illustrations on educational articles, as Cart notes, with a bit of imagination.

However, I do think the meta use of an image to illustrate just that style of photography or processing is the weakest argument for educational purpose. For example, I believe File:Bluebells ICM, Ashridge Estate, 2015.jpg has educational use beyond merely illustrating Intentional camera movement. Another example are the POTY 1st and 3rd prize winning photos File:Glühwendel brennt durch.jpg and File:Glühlampe explodiert.jpg. The former is not used on en Wiki at all, and the latter only to illustrate high speed flash photography. Yet people, including Yann, support these eye-candy photos, and the whole wiki community thought they were the very very finest featured images for two years running. Neither of those light bulb photos illustrates anything realistic, just the artistic imagination and technical talent of the photographer. -- Colin (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To me, these 2 pictures of light bulbs illustrate chemical and/or physical properties. Yes, the setup is artificial, but the result has high educational value to me. Cart's picture is nice, but colored that way, I don't see any EV. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So natural or black and white are OK and have EV, but no other colors? Then how about photos like this, no EV? Or sepia or cyanotypes? I'm just trying to find out where the boundaries are. --Cart (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For old images, I always think that black and white is better than sepia, but other disagree. There is an obvious educational value in coloring the Ebola virus, but I don't know the technical details of electronic micro-photography. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining your standpoint on this. --Cart (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Yann it might be helpful to be less black & white (ha!) about saying there isn't "any EV". I can appreciate that colour toning an image is (a) not to everyone's taste and (b) can limit its usefulness vs a neutral tone. This image assumes people want or are happy with using a purple rain image vs original coloured or neutral b&w where they could apply processing themselves. At least Cart did upload the colour original. We've all seen how someone can wreck a perfectly good photo with too much HDR or sliding the Highlights to -100 or Clarity to +100, etc. The result might rarely be appropriate for some illustration and be tasteful to some people, but not many. So I respect your claim that the processing here may limit the EV, but think it is hard to claim there isn't any EV at all. -- Colin (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Eve Teschlemacher (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Extraordinary and WOW! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mmm ... purple. Daniel Case (talk) 04:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support :-) --XRay ^talk 05:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'd actually prefer the original shot... I like these spotty yellow leaves on the grey surface --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rain. Mood. Pop culture reference. Certainly could illustrate an educational article. Well executed and simple composition. -- Colin (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brave nomination. --Podzemnik (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per supporters. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Colin and Podzemnik -- P999 (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I prefer the original version for the exact same raison as Martin. But still an unconditional fan of Cart images. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The original is not bad at all and I totally respect yours and Martin's votes. But like so many times, I want to try out new things and see where they lead me/us. At least all versions are there for anyone to use freely and that is most important. Btw, the yellow dots are not leaves but lichen as it says in the text. --Cart (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I cannot see that this meets FP criteria. Charles (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, a nom of my photos wouldn't be complete without an 'o' from you, Charles. :) --Cart (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, you are expected to give a reason or reasons -- Colin (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother Colin, I'm used to this and I'm sure Charles can come up with something. --Cart (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Featured pictures are images from highly skilled photographers and illustrators that the Wikimedia Commons community has chosen as some of the highest quality on the site." As this is an image that does not not reflect reality then it is submitted as an artistic creation 'of the highest quality' and I don't think this is. I will continue to oppose any images that in my opinion do no favours to the Commons FP project. I think it is important that FP images would be rated by those not in our community as being outstanding in their genre, whether it is landscape, interiors, wildlife, sports or whatever. Artistic images have their place of course, but the artistic barrier needs to be as high as the technical barrier is for most nominations. We should make every effort not to devalue the FP award, but it is unfortunately very difficult to guarantee objective voting when many of the voters are also nominators. Perhaps we should be forbidden from voting when we have a live nomination? Would that work for everyone? See talk page. Charles (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that my photos are devaluing the FP award? --Cart (talk) 21:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Great shot, but using a purple filter is kind of random to me. Looks good but is too artificial/artistic IMHO Poc o² 19:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose From a technical point of view, the image is slightly oversharpened in the sharp areas. The wow effect does not appear even after a long period of consideration and repeated reading of the explanation. Otherwise like Poco. --Ermell (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative - original[edit]

Info Before tensions get any higher here, it might be a good idea to offer the original as an alt. Anything to keep it mellow. --Cart (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I support this version, too. I find poetry in it. Not every FP has to hit you over the head with how specially decorated it is or whatever. Beauty also lies in simplicity, when done right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cart has a great eye for patterns, but for some reason, I don't feel totally comfortable looking at this picture. The picture seems imbalanced and the composition seems haphazard... the strong diagonal lines are neither parallel patterns, nor do they converge in a meaningful way. The raindrops seem to be distributed nonuniformly, with fewer around the bottom-right-most line. The depth of field seems insufficient, leading to only a narrow horizontal band that is sharp; but the out-of-focus areas aren't blurry enough to become an artistic bokeh either. Ultimately the eye wanders around the image looking for detail and is left unsatisfied. As a final straw on the camel: among the yellow particles are scattered throughout the image (which are fine), there's a particularly large clump on the left, visible at thumbnail size, which draws too much attention to itself. dllu (t,c) 06:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think dllu's comment sums up the problem with photographing rain very well. When you shoot rain, the weather is always bad. A bit self-evident, but you have bad light and you are dealing with raindrops that are very small and you need detail, so you are left with a narrow selection of ISO and DoF. To get this many splashes in the 1/125 sec (0.008) you have as your timeframe, it must really come down. You might think a normal rain will do but I've tried that and at best you get about 5-7 splashes in the area of your frame. The sound when this rain hit the roof was deafening(!), and it didn't fall uniformly but moved with the wind. Personally, I don't think the non-uniform pattern is a flaw. It makes it look natural, otherwise you could just bring out the garden hose. Rain is something that's available to most of us to photograph but there are reasons why we don't have that many good photos of it here. You can't predict or plan a rain photo unless you are a storm chaser. --Cart (talk) 08:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the other FP rain photo that comes to mind is File:Falling rain in mexico.jpg. -- Colin (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a really good photo, facing about the same problems as I had. I hope he had a waterproof casing for his camera! Even if I was standing in a window, I had to wrap my camera in a towel because of all the splatter. :) --Cart (talk) 09:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The main difference between File:Falling rain in mexico.jpg and Cart's photo is that that photo tells a story with a human element. When a story/scene is sufficiently compelling, even the sloppiest opportunistic snapshot can be an FP. Cart's photo, however, relies entirely on interesting patterns/textures in my opinion, so I hold it at a higher bar for technical and execution quality. Now, I agree with Cart that it's incredibly difficult to take a good photo of natural phenomena like rain, and a lot of it does come down to luck. But certain factors, like focus, framing, and lighting, can be controlled. For the uneven distribution of raindrops, the easiest remedy is to take many, many photos in quick succession, and select the most aesthetic arrangement of raindrops (Cart may have already done this). Since this is an art project, stacking or compositing different frames may not be entirely out of the question either. Also, water droplets in the air against a dark background look really cool [3], but a lot of this can't be seen in this photo because the top half of the image is the same shade of light grey as incoming raindrops --- a problem which may be mitigated by a polarizing filter or directed artificial light for the raindrops. Another possibility is to take this photo from farther away and higher up using a longer focal length, so that the scene appears compressed, allowing us to focus on the texture when all straight lines are nearly parallel and all raindrops are nearly the same size. Conversely, we can also take the photo from close up at a low angle, to isolate a single row of raindrops while rendering other droplets as artistic blurry blobs. We can also use a tilt lens or a camera that supports Scheimpflug movements to get the ground plane entirely in focus. The possibilities are endless, and heavy rain isn't exactly rare (try the monsoon season in Singapore) so I think it should be possible to achieve better execution. dllu (t,c) 09:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree totally with what you say (yes, I took and have taken many, many unpublished photos of rain, this is the best so far) and that the possibilities are endless, but in the end it comes down to just one thing: Actually doing it and publish it here. --Cart (talk) 10:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Prefer the processed one. It has more pop, and some of the rain streaks are enhanced. -- Colin (talk) 07:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 11:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really original, good capture, Poc o² 19:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Purple_rain_on_roof.jpg

File:Checker Taxi Cab.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2018 at 06:10:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
Info created by Adrian Nier - uploaded by Pilettes - nominated by Groupir ! -- Groupir ! (talk) 06:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Groupir ! (talk) 06:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Dull light, and secondarily, the way you munged the license plate number is distracting. Not sure why that would be necessary. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: I didn't retouch this photo. - Groupir ! (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course my remarks are for the photographer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Too dark, bad light. Yann (talk) 08:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 09:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Info Groupir !, Ikan Kekek, Yann, Peulle, Basotxerri: I like old cars like this so I gave the photo a bit of love, please revert it if you don't like it. The source link doesn't work anymore and it seems to be removed from Flickr. All the online versions have the same muddled license plate, so it was probably made that way by the author. I substituted it with a more natural-looking text. I also wanted to keep as much of the bluish evening light as possible since it goes well with an old cab like this. Not sure it is enough for FP, but this is as good as it gets. --Cart (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sure! Good now. Yann (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still at 'no' here. The level of sharpness is not high enough; it's kind of telling that the "checker" sign is unsharp too, despite the image being one of a checker cab.--Peulle (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The brightness is good now, but I'm with Peulle that it's not sharp enough for FP. And I don't even mean the depth of field, I'm not sure any part of the cab is actually sharp. -- KTC (talk) 23:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It looks a lot better, but I agree with the others that it probably needs more sharpness. I don't know if that's possible. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, sorry, post-processing can only do so much. If it's not there from the beginning, you can't get it out. --Cart (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Even putting the unsharpness and CA in the background aside, this is just too static a composition to be an FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 07:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:De Molen (windmill) and the nuclear power plant cooling tower in Doel, Belgium (DSCF3859).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2018 at 14:22:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry#Belgium
Info created by Trougnouf - uploaded by Trougnouf - nominated by Trougnouf -- Trougnouf (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Trougnouf (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the idea of "old vs. new" and the execution and I would have supported it if there weren't these power lines behind the mill, they really work against the composition. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A very interesting composition, but unfortunately the technical quality is too low for FP. --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is technically missing? I think the camera settings were ideal, ISO200 is the lowest my camera goes, F/9 is optimal on this zoom level with my lens, I don't think the focus is a miss, and I even had the camera on a tripod to do exposure bracketing in case that was necessary, it doesn't look flawed to me at a reasonable zoom level. If there's anything I missed in software I would be happy to improve it. --Trougnouf (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I find this photo compelling: The unbalanced nature of the photo that Basotxerri is complaining about is part of what I see as the dystopic new technology dominating over the windmill and the benches, grass and so on that are attempting to pretend everything is alright. I get the feeling in viewing this photo that everything other than the ugly, polluting new technology will be annihilated before long. And it looks fine to me, technically, though I could be missing something. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The technical quality is fine. It's an APS-C camera using the right settings in the daytime. The juxtaposition of the two power plants is quite interesting. I would support, but the composition is a bit left-heavy. The left of the image is a lot busier than the right. Meanwhile, I don't know what Ikan is talking about regarding "ugly, polluting new technology". The nuclear cooling tower only outputs pure water vapour, and is shaped in a beautiful hyperboloid. dllu (t,c) 06:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert, but that was my emotional reaction. And I don't think we want to debate here whether nuclear power plants are completely clean. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral It's really close for me, but I think on reflection it's not quite enough to gain my support. I really like the idea, but the light is a bit of an issue for me. I also find the car a bit disturbing; the left side of the image is supposed to represent the old technology, so its presence in front of the windmill is putting me off. I'd suggest reshooting on a day with better light, at least getting the light from the back so the left side is illuminated better.--Peulle (talk) 07:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan --Milseburg (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I uploaded a new version where the exposure has been increased on the left side especially. Let me know if there's any other adjustment to be made, I have a lot of room on the histogram. I think the light looked beautiful at that time of the day. The car is unfortunate and I won't be going back as Doel is a ghost town that's over an hour bike ride from the nearest train station, maybe some other Belgian commonner will be luckier. --Trougnouf (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting juxtaposition, but overly busy composition for FP to me. Daniel Case (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Frhdkazan (talk) 06:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Would have preferred the smoke to go in the opposite direction, but this composition works nonetheless. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Industry#Belgium

File:Parque nacional y reserva Denali, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-30, DD 13-19 PAN.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2018 at 12:47:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Landscape of Denali National Park‎ from Eielson Visitor Center, Alaska, United States. All by me, Poc o² 12:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 12:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ah! Mordor...! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

♥ --Trougnouf (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trougnouf I doubt that FPCBot will understand that template ... Poc o² 06:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be ignored like any irrelevant template? In any case I

Support this image. --Trougnouf (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I reckon that's how it looks like there most of the time. --Podzemnik (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I may have missed it, but I don't see how many photos you stacked. Could you add that information to the file description? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan, you can always realize it out of the file name (images 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, so 7 in total). I added this info in the file description Poc o² 06:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We FP photographers can usually figure out the "codes" used in file names, but please think about always making the info understandable in some way for other users. --Cart (talk) 08:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cart: my comment was not an "excuse" not to do that, no problem with that, I added the information and will do it in the future (if not, then just due to my advanced age) Poc o² 09:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poco My comment was not in any way meant as critique, just a friendly reminder also directed at other photographers who might read this. Your noms are well visited and this thread seemed like a good place for such a comment. I apologize if it sounded like something else. --Cart (talk) 10:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, all good, thanks, Poc o² 11:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Interesting to see how this sort of terrain looks in the fall ... Daniel Case (talk) 06:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love it --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bravo.--Ermell (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 05:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 01:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sputnik (talk) 11:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rosa 'Kent' (d.j.b) 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2018 at 14:41:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Rosa #Family Rosaceae
Info Rosa 'Kent' has half-filled white flowers with yellow stamens on a bushy shrub that cools well. This very strong and healthy rose has green fine leaves. All by ] -- Famberhorst (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shot --Patriccck (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice shot, but nothing extraordinary, imho. --El Grafo (talk) 08:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per El Grafo; it's nice but I can't say I'm really blown away. The white petal obscuring part of the yellow is a bit of a nuisance.--Peulle (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Info That curled petal is typical of half-filled roses.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm pretty impressed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Schwarzseen Villanders Südtirol.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2018 at 05:10:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Italy
Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 06:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Storkk (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SupportBijay Chaurasia (Talk) 09:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I want to be there! --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's nice and all (hey, Swedish camera!) but this has the same strange colors as the previous one. The tone is just slightly off, even if I'm probably not the right person to complain about a little 'Purple haze'. ;) I did some color correction tests with these pics that came out a bit more natural. --Cart (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @W.carter: If you like I can upload a RAW file for you for some tests. I'm very happy with my 'Swedish rhapsody'. Thanks for your comment --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but that's not necessary, it such a little nudge that is needed. I only used the 'Hue and saturation' in Photoshop (ctrl+U) and toggled the 'Hue' ("rainbow slider") to -6 and got this result. It's just a suggestion, it might not be to everyone's taste. --Cart (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Poc o² 19:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it, although Cart is right that the tone could be improved. Daniel Case (talk) 06:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 06:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good.--Ermell (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Uoaei1 -- P999 (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 01:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sputnik (talk) 11:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Large Gautama Buddha statue in Buddha Park of Ravangla, Sikkim.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2018 at 17:27:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Subhrajyoti07 - uploaded by Subhrajyoti07 - nominated by Subhrajyoti07 -- Subhrajyoti07 (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Subhrajyoti07 (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice but looking at the unprocessed image you posted in the history it appears the chest is more exposed than it should be (lost detail) and the forest shouldn't have this blueish tone.

--Trougnouf (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The brightness of the statue has been increased by adding some localized adjustments. But as per histogram there are no over blown highlights. It is slightly on the bright side but with details intact. The slight bluish in forest I guess was a result of decreasing the global contrast in the image. - Subhrajyoti07 (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as previous comments Charles (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ An impressive photo, but unfortunately you have emphasized the blue colours --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The blue colour has been dialed down a bit globally in the photo. Pl check - Subhrajyoti07 (talk) 02:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support After improvement --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support good enough now, imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks good, but there's a strange loss of fine detail (visible in the grass and bushes at the bottom). Too much noise reduction? dllu (t,c) 06:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a really imposing image. I'll await your work to address dllu's points before I vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I re-processed the image from scratch this time with selective noise reduction and aimed at maintaining the overall incremental improvement on this image that I have been doing basis feedback from various reviewers over the last few weeks. I think I have been able to address the issue highlighted by dllu in the latest version. The updated image has already been uploaded. - Subhrajyoti07 (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support chest detail is visible to the naked eye, less blue and less exaggerated colors, I approve. --Trougnouf (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Interesting subject, quite good for me. Yann (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question statue appears to be leaning roughly 0.5° (counterclockwise from viewer's position)... does that reflect reality? Storkk (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The observation on tilt is correct (It was off by 0.53 deg). I have fixed it now and uploaded the updated photo. Thanks - Subhrajyoti07 (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support seems fine now. dllu (t,c) 18:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 19:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- WQL (talk) 05:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:CatedraldeBariloche.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2018 at 13:08:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cathedral of Our Lady of Nahuel Huapi, San Carlos de Bariloche, Argentina

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info all by me -- Ezarateesteban 13:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 13:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Bad light, perspective distortion. Yann (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 11:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Residence on No. 45, Route Pichon.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2018 at 05:33:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Fayhoo - uploaded by Fayhoo - nominated by WQL -- WQL (talk) 05:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- WQL (talk) 05:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This picture needs perspective and horizontal correction. The walls are not vertical, and the building is leaning to the right. The composition is interesting, but the size of the image really small. It would be good to run it to QI first Commons:Quality_images_candidates before nominating it here -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Basile Morin: I've helped Fayhoo to fix the horizon. Please review it, thank you! --WQL (talk) 08:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The size is better but sorry the verticals have not been fixed. The top of the building is thinner than the base. You need to use a software like Lightroom or Photoshop to change the appearance and make it closer to the reality. But my oppose is because after correction, there will be too little space on the right of the building, with the roof cut. So unless this image is a crop from a larger file you can compose differently with more space on the right, I'm afraid the whole will look tight within the space -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is also some confusion in the beginning of the file's history. The original file was uploaded by Antigng and Fayhoo overwrote it with a completely different photo of the house. --Cart (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: That's why I created File:Residence on No. 45, Route Pichon (old).jpg, since Antigng's version is of low quality in my opinion. --WQL (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that seems like a roundabout and unusual way of doing it when the overwrite could have been moved to a new file instead. --Cart (talk) 11:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too much distortion.--Peulle (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per Peulle --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basil and Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Perspective distortion. Yann (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 11:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sympecma paedisca 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2018 at 12:25:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Insects
Info created by AfroBrazilian - uploaded by AfroBrazilian - nominated by AfroBrazilian -- Afro-Braz-Ilian ^talk 12:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Afro-Braz-Ilian ^talk 12:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a bit small. Charles (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is maximum. --Afro-Braz-Ilian ^talk 18:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice as well as a very good execution. --Harlock81 (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 19:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I may be spoiled by the dragonfly pictures that have been nominated here by Charles, et al., but compare the resolution and contrast in the other current FP in Category:Sympecmatinae: File:Austrolestes cingulatus03.jpg. It's too small for FPC, nowadays. It was taken in 2006. And yet, it's a flat-out better photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support File resolution enough for me for such a small damselfly in natural. More resolution means, you need to approach it and cut the aperture and go for artificial lights (like me) or lift the ISO (as Charles). All have their own pros and cons. J e e 02:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fundación César Manrique - post.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2018 at 14:27:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info For better understanding: here you can see the cordon with the posts; created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- WQL (talk) 05:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good idea. At first glance puzzling what it is. --Milseburg (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:München BW 2017-03-16 19-55-33.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2018 at 07:46:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Berthold Werner -- Berthold Werner (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't think this one compares well to our existing German Architecture FPs. The light for much of the building is not great and rather flat. The bright light star is distracting. The left side is quite blurred. -- Colin (talk) 12:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. To add to his critique, the additional architecture on either side, and the posts in front, are distracting. There also seems to be a slight tilt. Daniel Case (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. A good photo and worth nominating, but not IMO outstanding enough for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ich weiß, wie schwierig es einem der Platz macht, ein halbwegs perfektes Bild zu bekommen... :-/ --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jawohl. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panorama vom Wachtküppel.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2018 at 13:24:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany
Info Instructive panoramic view (360°) from the Wachtküppel in the Rhön Mountains. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Storkk (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 21:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural oppose This image has been nominated for deletion as copyvio; we should wait until it's resolved before considering it as an FP. Support Never mind; it turns out it was by one of INeverCry's socks and the account has been blocked indefinitely. Daniel Case (talk) 05:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Lots to see, and very pretty. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Water, Sand and Ice.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2018 at 19:50:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Ice
Info Natural phenomenon occurring in Iceland. Icebergs from the nearest mountain get detached and melt on the pitch-black, basalt lava sand. All by me -- Bharel (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bharel (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the idea. Reminds me (remotely) of this photo. However, the flare of the sun spoils the nomination for me. Not good enough to support, not bad enough to oppose. --Code (talk) 06:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Code for your review The flare was actually an artistic choice. I have a few other shots on different angles without the flare, but I chose this on purpose. (Much like another close image I've uploaded with an international glare File: Diamonds of nature.jpg) Bharel (talk) 10:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding that file's name, please read Commons:File naming. Since people need to be able to search this huge archive to find the right photo, names must be accurate and not poetic or misleading. Only those looking for "natural diamonds" will find that file now, and they will be disappointed. --Cart (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks cart Bharel (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like another one that could be an album cover. Daniel Case (talk) 06:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks mate :-) Bharel (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful and striking, and this particular flare doesn't bother me, or not much. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The colors seem saturated. Natural object that doesn't look natural. I suspect a strong post-processing. And also find the composition has a problem of cropping on top -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review Basile . There's not much post processing actually (tiny bit of mainly exposure correction on the water). The black sand creates a strong saturation difference. I am, however, able to desaturate it straight on the original raw file if you believe it'll be better. Bharel (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps just this exposure correction is enough to make the picture looking artificial. You can try to improve it, yes, though the glare on top with the wave cut too short are also bothering in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cezembre 2 cropped.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2018 at 16:03:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by US Army - uploaded by TCY - nominated by Skimel -- Skimel (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Skimel (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question The filename says it's cropped. From what image is it cropped? Daniel Case (talk) 22:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently cropped from File:Cezembre Bombing 2.jpg. I remade it with improvement. Yann (talk) 08:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Edit conflict) File:Cezembre_Bombing_2.jpg already is a comparably low quality digital reproduction. (Handwriting/Typewriter is unsharp, so the rest is also not as sharp as it could be. At least in the areas depicting the main photograph, it also has some weird JPG artifacts that clearly show the borders between the 8x8 pixel blocks used by the jpg algorithm (best seen at 300% zoom, but it affects picture quality at normal magnifications as well).) Something went wrong there. The version presented here, on top of all that also has a considerably reduced color palette: the "original" had 252 shades of grey (normal for 8-bit grayscale), this one has a mere 39 unique values. This results in what I'm tempted to call strong pixel-level posterization. Something went very wrong there.

TL;DR: This is a ~~very bad digital reproduction and even if it was improved by re-cropping the source file it would still be a~~ pretty bad digital reproduction. --El Grafo (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yann's edit fixed the "posterization" issue, but the rest of my comment remains untouched by that … --El Grafo (talk) 09:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Certainly a valuable image, but not excellent on the technical and aesthetic aspects -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks everyone for the input, and thanks to Yann for improving all the images I uploaded of the bombing of Cezembre. I understand this falls short of the requirements here, and I will therefore submit this picture to the Valued Images. Skimel (talk) 21:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Skimel: if you want to {{Withdraw}}, you should use this template, as we can't withdraw for you -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Skimel (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:American white pelican 3 cropped.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2018 at 11:20:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes
Info created by GerifalteDelSabana - uploaded by GerifalteDelSabana - nominated by GerifalteDelSabana -- GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 11:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 11:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not bad, but nothing special for FP either. The quality and composition are not optimal --A.Savin 16:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A. Savin. Daniel Case (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sputnik (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose - Close to FP level, in my opinion, but I miss the rest of the reflection of the bird that you might have gotten by backing up a bit. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

•

Comment I agree with you, Ikan, however, the bird was a mere metre from shore. Guess I'll have to be luckier next time, hahaha. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 04:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stercoraire iceland.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2018 at 22:43:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Iceland
Info created by Aymen861 - uploaded by Aymen861 - nominated by Aymen861 -- Aymen861 (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Aymen861 (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful view but the front-right blurry rock kills it for me. The very bright one on the bottom-left isn't great either, and I would like to see some of the mountain range with a little bit more focus though that's technically nearly impossible. There is some red CA on the grass ~~and the categorization is very imprecise~~. --Trougnouf (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great EV, if only you could put some more information and categories. Yann (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added Category:Stercorarius skua. I would support with geolocation, or at least the name of the mountain in the background. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Frhdkazan (talk) 06:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the out of focus rocks or mountain is a problem... but the CA is disturbing. Would support if that was fixed. Storkk (talk) 11:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! Tournasol7 (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's a really interesting composition and great luck to find the eggs! But oppose per others, primarily for the unsharp foreground. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan and Tougnouf. Great juxtaposition marred by technical shortcomings. Daniel Case (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dutch bicycle.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2018 at 10:21:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Other land vehicles
Info Dutch bicycle a.k.a Roadster bicycle. My shot. -- Mile (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a great capture of the bike, but couldn't you find a less busy background to photograph it against? The person in the yellow neon jacket is rather disturbing. --Cart (talk) 11:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An excellent sharp photo of a normal Dutch bicycle, but the people behind the bicycle are spoiling the composition.

Michielverbeek: Could you please sign your vote to make it legit. --Cart (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just forgot it. --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Michielverbeek. Daniel Case (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Regrettably, background is too distracting. -- P999 (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lopesan Baobab, Maspalomas, May 2018 -3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2018 at 18:41:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture#Spain
Info Lopesan Baobab Resort, Maspalomas, Gran Canaria, at dusk. All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support A pity for the person but it's still really good. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Frhdkazan (talk) 06:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support No towels? --Cart (talk) 09:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No time for sitting idly by the pool if you hope to be first in line for dinner! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This picture I can only review in comparison with the already promoted one, which I clearly prefer -- perhaps the dark building parts at both sides do the blue hour photo no favor, and I also prefer for this motif the more wide crop instead of a square photo. --A.Savin 13:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, A.Savin. I chose a square because a wider crop is not necessarily better here. —Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? IMO it's better indeed and has more of the symmetry, though because of the dark parts I still wouldn't vote in support. --A.Savin 15:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I'm inordinately bugged by the asymmetry of the near right and left corners. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sky and the pool are nice, but the building and tree lights are too dark and too bright. Not saying it could have been taken/processed any better but the result isn't quite there compared to our best night FPs. -- Colin (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative - uncropped[edit]

Info As suggested by A.Savin, also pinging Basotxerri, Frhdkazan, Cart, George Chernilevsky. While I do prefer the cropped square, I could understand arguments in favor of the uncropped wide-angle version --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as stated above. --A.Savin 17:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral All that gradient light is competing with the patterns in this one and makes it restless. --Cart (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is IMO a better composition, and quite a nice one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per other crop -- Colin (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I still prefer this one because it contains the competition between gradients and patterns noted by Cart in her oppose !vote to that one. Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. A bit unsharp and overexposed in the middle, but very nice nonetheless. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this version better, it kind of adds more symetry into the image. --Podzemnik (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support more completed from my perspective --WQL (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Lopesan_Baobab,_Maspalomas,_May_2018_-2.jpg

File:Red Clover 2011 G1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2018 at 16:01:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - You really capture the beauty of this common flower. Any other remark from me would feel like unnecessary quibbling. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good shot, but nothing all too special imho. It's a very commons plant, and the shot lacks in the wow-department for me, especially when compared to the already featured File:Trifolium_pratense_-_Keila2.jpg. --El Grafo (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think lighting could be significantly better. Actually, given the positions of the leaves, I think taking a half a step around the flower to your right would have stood a good chance of producing a more pleasing photo. Also per El Grafo. Storkk (talk) 09:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support If you have to upload something this small, this is the way to do it. Daniel Case (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan -- P999 (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Soyuz rocket and spaceship V1-1.svg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2018 at 13:15:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Space exploration
Info created by AstroBidules (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- AstroBidules (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please add documentation sources? Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ still no information about the sources. Yann (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~conditional~~ ~~on documentation sources~~ --Trougnouf (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC) The sources are listed on the bottom-left of the image, I mentioned them in the description, they seem a bit random (except for http://danielmarin.naukas.com/2014/09/30/lanzada-la-soyuz-tma-14m/ ) but AstroBidules managed to make an awesome looking diagram out of them, Support --Trougnouf (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support per Trougnouf. Daniel Case (talk) 05:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok now --Cart (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great job! --Brateevsky {talk} 15:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:A pier at a campsite during sunset, Sidney Spit (part of Gulf Islands National Park Reserve), Sidney Island, British Columbia, Canada 20.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2018 at 03:39:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. I took this picture during my trip to the Sidney Island. I took more pictures of the pier during the day which can be seen in the category of the Sidney Spit. The pier kind of grabbed my attention for quite a bit so I returned there during the sunset and this is the result. -- Podzemnik (talk) 03:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I have File:A pier on Sidney Spit, Sidney Island, British Columbia, Canada 02.jpg on my list of possible FP nominees, but it's different enough that I think both this photo and that one could possibly pass. Anyway, this is a really beautiful photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ikan Kekek, I might give the picture you mentioned a go after this nomination is finished. Regards, --Podzemnik (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 09:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sputnik (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the way the line of the pier is echoed, slightly, in the clouds.Daniel Case (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support yep --WQL (talk) 05:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Hieno näkymä merelle Seurasaaresta.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2018 at 15:44:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by JKorpimies - uploaded by JKorpimies - nominated by JKorpimies -- JKorpimies (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JKorpimies (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unfortunately overprocessed, especially in the clouds. Maybe you could try a more conservative approach with image processing? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, could be sharper, could be brighter, categories missing, looks posterized and overprocessed. --XRay ^talk 10:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten: IMO PNG is not a good choice for photographs. --XRay ^talk 13:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sputnik (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunset at Ganga Sagar, Janakpurdham 11.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2018 at 13:38:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Nepal
Info created by Bijay chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay chaurasia - nominated by Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 13:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 13:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very atmospheric and nicely composed, so I'll support, but I think the reason people have so far not supported is that sunsets are specifically described as usually beautiful yet common, so people may be feeling that this photo may not be a special enough sunset to support but haven't been inclined to oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support Per Ikan, I see it as more of a mood than an attempt to represent what I consider to be dusk here (as we can't see the sun since it appears to have gone down). Some very minimal perspective correction is needed. Daniel Case (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sputnik (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice sunset but these black silhouettes are not very interesting -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. --Cart (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pitkä alikulku espoossa.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2018 at 09:33:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created by JKorpimies - uploaded by JKorpimies - nominated by JKorpimies -- JKorpimies (talk) 09:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JKorpimies (talk) 09:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose It's a great idea and good composition, the kind of image you'd expect to see on a square meter of canvas at photo exhibitions, but unfortunately the focus has ended up on the tiles instead of the bike. That makes it a no-go for me, sorry. --Cart (talk) 09:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per cart Bijay Chaurasia (Talk)
Support - I find this a good composition and I don't find that having the bike be a little out of focus in the background makes it unworthy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Experimental shot looking weird -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 13:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cambodge Ta Prohm bis Temple.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2018 at 20:26:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Cambodia
Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. I took this picture during my trip to the Ta Prohm Temple in Cambodia, loaded by Pierre André Leclercq - nominated by Pierre André Leclercq. --Pierre André ^(talk) 20:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pierre André ^(talk) 20:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A little unsharp and not really that effective a composition. Daniel Case (talk) 03:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition spoiled by the top down view which brings distractive elements on the top of the image, and the stairs are also intrusive -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose harsh light, not a great looking angle. --Trougnouf (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination OK! Thank you for your advices--Pierre André ^(talk) 13:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black-crowned Night Heron -- Nycticorax nycticorax.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2018 at 03:27:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes#Family_:_Ardeidae_(Herons)
Info All by me. -- GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The blob in the lower right is too distracting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Eh, @Ikan Kekek: , I thought so. It was on a roof, which was pretty hard to avoid capturing in the picture. Guess I'll have to retract another nomination. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And to think I thought the wow factor would be enough, hahaha. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sharpness is good but noisy, and per Ikan -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice try under the circumstances, but it didn't clear the bar. Daniel Case (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 05:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colorful floating bungalows in Don Khon, Laos.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2018 at 09:04:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Laos
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 12:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 14:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! Place like such not too often seen here. --Ximonic (talk) 11:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Colorful shophouses in Koon Seng Road, Singapore.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2018 at 09:02:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Singapore
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite special. Which is, after all, what we do here.--Peulle (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 14:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--WQL (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 19:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 11:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hermione (ship, 2014), Sète 2018.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2018 at 07:38:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite the tents the atmosphere is very special and brings this picture out of the ordinary. -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some might complain about the tents but I like the old vs. new contrast and the very lovely tones. Quality is flawless as always. --Code (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Code -- Colin (talk) 08:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The tents actually add to the image since they look exactly like the old military campaign tents of the original ship's era. They put the ship in context. In this dim light you can imagine what it looked like when the ship was made ready to sail for the American Revolution. --Cart (talk) 09:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support despite the tents. Storkk (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the angle doesn't work for me; it makes the image show too much of the harbour and not enough of the ship.--Peulle (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm still evaluating this photo, but please fix a dust spot that's some ways to the left of the upper right corner. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done I cloned out not one but two dust-spots, let me know if yours is still here. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 04:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you took care of it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the photo: I love the ship and the harbor, but the bottom crop isn't working that smoothly for me and the right crop, with the one unsharp object in the lower right corner, is bugging me. I don't know what a photo that included more that is now below and to the right of the crops would have looked like, but I think I'd like this photo better if you did a horizontal crop right in front of the unsharp post, thereby also getting rid of a lot of the tents. The tents don't disturb me per se, but they kind of clog up a section of the photo. I think my proposed crop would create a more unified composition, but of course others might disagree. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Light is just great, but considering the Hermione the main subject I think that the angle is not the best as a good portion of the subject is hidden behind the tents Poc o² 19:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The main subject is the whole scene, of course it is not the ship alone! I don't understand how can someone can think otherwise...! poor review, really. I will not be surprised if someone says the third window of the second boat is not under the right angle this is very disturbing!, and there is a big very very disturbing thing out of focus at bottom right, oh and so many boring tents!! where are the specialist of the oppose votes, there are many reasons here. Come one!! it is easy! Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how you do write this, poor reaction, really. Surely are we reviewing the whole image, but it's a matter of fact that something in the image will caught your attetion at first, to me that is the ship and looking at it is not pleasant because it is partially hidden. It could have been the area where the sun hid but those cranes are not appealing to me, or it could have been the tent, which are really prominent and a distraction in the composition. Your reaction is disrespectful. If I had written some bullshit but supported you wouldn't have probably complained, and I didn't even opposse. With this attituted you can expect next time something like "Oppose, I don't like it", and I hope that you don't complain then again as it is in my eyes the kind of review you are asking for. Poc o² 07:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I was going to oppose based on the tents until I read Cart's !vote. Daniel Case (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm surprised that nobody talked about the title "File:Hermione (ship, 2014), Sète 2018.jpg" as we see only the back of the ship and it is only about 10% of the image. Nobody? and nobody oppose for the way the first tent is cut at bottom? and the "forbidden sign" at bottom? not disturbing? the second crane is misplaced too? no? isn't it? Sometimes FPC is not the research of the finest picture, but the competition of the poorest review. That is a snap shot, but a lucky one, that's all. Better for me to stop talking, please continue. Christian Ferrer ^(talk)

You have only yourself to blame for taking such nice photos with wow ambience that we just fall in love with them and forgive and forget all the little details. --Cart (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tourist snapshot & POTY. -- Colin (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose, at least for the right crop, because that unsharp post is not needed in the picture and distracts me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 06:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 13:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Loxura atymnus-Kadavoor-2018-06-18-001.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2018 at 09:11:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info Loxura atymnus, Yamfly, is a species of Lycaenidae found in Asia. There are several types of nectaries in the orchids, including extrafloral types that secrete nectar on the outside of the buds or inflorescence while the flower is developing. In contrast to floral nectaries, nectar produced outside the flower generally have a defensive function. The nectar attracts predatory insects which will eat both the nectar and any plant-eating insects around, thus functioning as 'bodyguards'. Foraging predatory insects show a preference for plants with extrafloral nectaries, particularly some species of ants and wasps, which have been observed to directly defend the plants. Loxura atymnus is famous for consuming nectar secreted from the extrafloral nectaries stimulated by the ants. Here they are on a Philippine orchid bud along with some Yellow crazy ants. C/U/N by Jkadavoor -- J e e 09:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- J e e 09:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 10:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 11:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 12:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support But please remove the dust spot (see note). --A.Savin 12:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I requested one of my friends here to help as no processing tool available in the old computer now I'm using. J e e 13:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What happend to your computer? --Cart (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jee: OK, I saw it now already -- I think it would be then unfair to demand you to fix it -- no problem, I'll fix it for you (it's quite easy), but as we have the occasion, maybe you send me your raw file -- I would also try to fix the noise better. If interested, mail me? --A.Savin 20:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A.Savin and Jee I've uploaded a version of the JPG without the dust spot. Then afterwards a version processed from RAW that tries to be as similar to the original as I can get it, and it has less JPG noise/artefacts. -- Colin (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's definitely better. --A.Savin 22:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Colin and Alex. J e e 01:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Fascinating. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support great ! Olivier LPB (talk) 11:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P999 (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 11:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fondamenta Zacchere Rio delle Muneghe Venezia.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2018 at 19:05:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Italy
Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice big photo, but I'm not finding the composition compelling. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan; shadow is inconvenient. Daniel Case (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cernina fluctuata 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2018 at 10:45:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 19:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P999 (talk) 00:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 04:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Luscious and creamy ... Daniel Case (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 11:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really love it! $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 19:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hermagor Görtschach Filialkirche hl. Heinrich NW-Ansicht 18062018 3636.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2018 at 06:11:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Beautiful, but the slanted post in the lower right is a little distracting, so I wonder whether the photo would look better with a small crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Ikan Kekek: The slanted post has been cropped out. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak oppose~~ Seems overly processed to me. There is a mildly disturbing halo around the steeple in the sky, but there also seems something wrong with the overall contrast. The face of the tower also seems quite disturbing to me. Storkk (talk) 10:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Storkk: Thanks for your valuable review. According to your hints some modifications were made. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It looks significantly better to me now, enough to strike the oppose. Something is still bugging me about the shadows, but not enough to oppose. Storkk (talk) 11:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Not the light one would want, but a very good job with it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 10:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 07:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel Case, --Podzemnik (talk) 04:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stranded mules during the Uttarakhand Floods of 2013 as encountered by People for Animals during a rescue operation.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2018 at 06:40:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info created by Pulakit Singh - uploaded by DiplomatTesterMan - nominated by DiplomatTesterMan -- DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 06:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 06:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much space on the top and not enough at the bottom. Also technically very visible CAs to be fixed (skull). It would be good to run this picture to the QI Commons:Quality_images_candidates before nominating it here -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sad but not great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Also, per Commons:NPOV and Commons:What Commons is not, please keep the description brief, neutral and to cover just what is in the picture and known to a neutral observer at the scene. Much as we sympathise with the disaster, Commons isn't a propaganda website for animal rescue, and animals aren't actually capable of "hope". Editorialising comments belong on other sites re-using our images. -- Colin (talk) 07:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't see how we could know that other members of the Animal Kingdom are incapable of feeling hope. Otherwise, I agree, but it's best for you also not to editorialize about things we can't know. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's anthropomorphising, if we want to be technical about it ;-). I see also the editorialising is in the FPC note too. That's too much. Please keep this sort of thing off of Commons. We're just an image repository. -- Colin (talk) 09:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I'm saying, it's also best for you not to make that kind of declarative statement of your opinion on this if you don't want a discussion. Note that I've avoided stating my opinion except to say that I don't see how we could know that all animal species other than Homo sapiens couldn't possibly feel hope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read that description more like "people had left these animals without any hope to survive". It's just a way of saying "never going to happen". - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 05:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Basile Morin.--Peulle (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all above, and because, despite the filename, no people are in the image "rescusing" anything. Daniel Case (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Daniel. I've sent a rename request -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Trougnouf strongly reduced/removed the CAs. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 05:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Desfile de los Locos.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2018 at 17:41:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is pretty creepy. I don't like the angry man flipping the birds in an otherwise innocent walk, but that adds an emotional response and I guess emotion is what we are after here. ~~Can you improve the categorization a bit? It's not precise nor accurate.~~ --Trougnouf (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Support --Trougnouf (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will support once you fix the categories. Having this in the categories of "Parade" and "Parades" doesn't make sense, and why are those two different categories, anyway? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Having fixed the cats, I'll say that there is good chaos in this photo ... it brings out the craziness of the event. Daniel Case (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Added to two wiki pages too. J e e 01:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sputnik (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC) Multa perturbatio in hac pictura.[reply]

Could you please use a living language? This is a little irritating. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pro me Britannica lingua irritabilis est. (For me English is irritating.)

Kamu boleh guna Bahasa Melayu. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ich kann nicht Malaiisch. Vielleicht Deutsch?

Meine Deutsch ist nicht so gut, aber es ist ein modernische Sprach. Ich habe nur ein Jahre Lateinisch studiert. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support--WQL (talk) 05:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Ryxö island nature reserve in Brofjorden.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2018 at 17:35:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Sweden
Info In the 60s, this area was the focus of one of the hottest debates in Sweden, as plans were made to build Scandinavia's biggest oil refinery and oil port so close to a nature reserve. This gave the newly awakened environmental movement a push and the refinery was made to be "the world's safest and most beautiful", with most of the operation underground, blasted into the granite cliffs. The reserve is so far untouched and has a variety of local wildlife plus a heard of cows. In this photo I managed to catch four roe deer down by the shore. The photo is taken from a ledge overlooking the flatlands of the old Rixö granite quarry (shown here). There used to be a hill there, as big and high as the one I'm standing on, but it got chopped up and shipped off to Germany to be used in the construction of Autobahn. No such quantities of durable granite could be obtained in Germany and everything was shipped from the quay down left in the photo. The water snaking off towards the horizon is the inlet of Brofjorden, today trafficked by tankers. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 10:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support So nice to see this feature, which has figured in so many of your other images, in its entirety, or at least close to it. I knew it was the only real fjord in Sweden; I didn't know about its role in your country's environmental history ... parallel to that of Storm King near where I live, or, a little further away, Tocks Island Dam (or, rather, non-Dam today). Daniel Case (talk) 01:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually three real fjords here, Brofjorden, Gullmarn and Åbyfjorden. Also several minor ones. The one in the photo is obviously my favorite since it's the most photogenic. :) You can see the rest of it, to the right, here. --Cart (talk) 09:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support J e e 02:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Altmühltal Apollofalter.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2018 at 18:27:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info created and uploaded by Michael Schroeren - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot.--Peulle (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, --Podzemnik (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC) As a child, 65 years ago, I saw many of these butterflies in Franken; I'm happy to see that there are still some of them.[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 09:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 11:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Peulle -- P999 (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 21:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful ! Thanks Olivier LPB (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support crazy sharp --Trougnouf (talk) 10:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hemerocallis fulva 2018 G1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2018 at 15:32:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 09:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 11:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 11:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P999 (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 04:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lago Kluane, Destruction Bay, Yukón, Canadá, 2017-08-25, DD 70-76 PAN.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2018 at 15:00:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Panoramic view of Kluane Lake, near Destruction Bay, Yukon, Canada. The lake is located in the southwest area of the Yukon and, with 408 km² (158 sq mi), is the largest lake enterely contained within the territory. All by me, Poc o² 15:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 15:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well done! Excellent, pleasant and atmospheric picture -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I really feel like I'm there when looking through this picture. Just a small point: It would be the largest lake in the territory. Canada has provinces and territories, no states. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected, thank you --Poc o² 10:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 09:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent picture! There is just a small thing I would try to do differently: the waterline below cuts slightly out of picture which would be to avoid. But this picture captured my eye beautifully. --Ximonic (talk) 11:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 14:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Idem as Ximonic above. Yann (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really a good work. Looking it, one wish to be there. --Harlock81 (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like that car that shows up on the road at full-size. Daniel Case (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Out of your Canadian panoramas, I think this is my favourite so far. Many interesting things to see. --Podzemnik (talk) 04:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Río Copper, Glennallen, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-22, DD 114.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2018 at 20:01:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Panoramic view of the Copper River, Glennallen, Alaska, United States. All by me, Poc o² 20:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 20:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the vehicles on the one bar that show up only at full-res. Daniel Case (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The guy on the hill with the binoculars looking at the vast vista really makes the picture special to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan! Is it just me or shouldn't the image be slightly rotated ccw? Probably just me... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it should be rotated... Yann (talk) 10:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cayambe (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 09:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~~The image is tilted~~. Apart from that technical problem, I don't find the landscape really awesome. The person could bring something special, but unfortunately his back and action are not very interesting in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I applied a tilt --Poc o² 18:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support with tilt correction. --Yann (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 01:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:East Railay Leh, Krabi province, Thailand 2018 7.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2018 at 21:21:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles
Info Tractor for the transport of tourists and luggages from boats to the seacoast in East Rai Leh, Thailand. Created, uploaded and nominated by Karelj -- Karelj (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sky's sort of overexposed and nothing else about this really stands out to me. Daniel Case (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose again per Daniel, sorry --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is not excellent and the image too small -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose harsh light, low resolution, subject could be interesting if this was a very well performed shot with (emotive) people's emotions exposed --Trougnouf (talk) 10:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Karelj (talk) 03:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Front view of Milan Stazione Centrale entrance portico.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2018 at 22:40:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Italy
Info created by Daniel Case - uploaded by Daniel Case - nominated by Daniel Case. Also includes the outdoor entrance to the metro station -- Daniel Case (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Daniel Case (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nice picture, but I'm not overwhelmed by the sharpness of the upper story of the station. Could you sharpen it a bit more? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done Daniel Case (talk) 04:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Big improvement. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like that there are everyday people milling about, coming or going somewhere. Not a sterile monument or some place with gawking tourists. --Cart (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I don't find it particularly interesting. Harsh midday light; the structures in the front spoil the view (yes, it's not up to the photographer). And the quality could have been better -- a bit too soft at the sides --A.Savin 17:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exactly as I remember it. -- P999 (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice station but the confusion of the people as well as the decreasing sharpness to the sides reduce the good impression. I can't detect a wow effect either.--Ermell (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it matters to anyone who doesn't have issues with the composition, I have sharpened up the sides. Daniel Case (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per A.Savin and because these passengers catch the sight without being very interesting -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per A.Savin. --Karelj (talk) 07:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 08:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black Hornbill cropped.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2018 at 07:01:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds#Order_:_Bucerotiformes_(Hornbills,_Hoopoes_and_Wood_Hoopoes)
Info Failure is not final - John Hagee. All by me. -- GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 07:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 07:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Clipping shadows part. --Laitche (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many blown highlights in the background and too compact darkness on the chest of the bird. Is this photo straight from camera or is it processed from RAW format? If you have it in RAW, this might be saved with some good post-processing. --Cart (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is good and the bird sharp, but the light was not very cooperative -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Streptopelia chinensis Tas Edit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2018 at 05:37:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds#Order_:_Columbiformes_(Pigeons_and_Doves)
Info Is currently a FP in the English Wikipedia. A good picture. Created and uploaded by JJ_Harrison - nominated by me, -- GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 05:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 05:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, almost too small for QI/FP and not great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fine then, I'm pretty sure if Ikan disagrees, so would everyone else, since he's right most of the time.

Comment - Eh, people disagree with me often. If you think it's really of FP quality, let some other people pass judgment before you withdraw. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: , it's just a picture I came across and thought it was nice, so actually if it really is nice someone might just renominate it, hahaha. I don't mind! GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 07:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral It's a great image - too small for today's FP standards but fine nevertheless --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Nice colors but the blurry foreground is too intrusive and the crop on the right very tight -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose much too small, feet are hidden --Trougnouf (talk) 10:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 22:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lychnis chalcedonica flowers (DSCF6457).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2018 at 22:32:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Caryophyllaceae
Info I like the contrast between the freshly plowed dirt in this newly constructed garden and these bright flowers overwhelming the red bits of the mosaic. --Trougnouf (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Trougnouf (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P999 (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DnaX (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 08:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:I think its gonna rain today.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2018 at 12:50:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Bert Kaufmann - uploaded by File Upload Bot - nominated by -- Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a category above. Yann (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the file's name, please read Commons:File naming and consider renaming the file. Since people need to be able to search this huge archive to find the right photo, names must be accurate and not poetic or misleading. Flickr names are seldom ok in that respect. --Cart (talk) 12:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose even if properly named; it's unsharp and very noisy, as well as nearly blown at the right. Daniel Case (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good idea but technically badly implemented.--Ermell (talk) 06:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sputnik (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--WQL (talk) 05:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm not amazed by the composition. I'd like the photo better if only the right side with the higher cloud were in the picture. To my eyes, the left side kind of sits there - not that there wasn't activity in real life, but just as a composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not very sharp and colour noise in the sky --Llez (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panorama vom Großen Leuchtberg.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2018 at 09:18:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany
Info Instructive panoramic view (360°) from the Bismarck-Tower on the Großer Leuchtberg near Eschwege in Hesse, Germamy. -- Milseburg (talk) 09:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 09:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 14:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 03:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 04:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Trougnouf (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 06:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Changing the Guard ceremony in Québec during the summer 05.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2018 at 04:40:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events_(Arts,_concerts,_shows...)
Info All by -- The Photographer 04:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The man in the aquamarine t-shirt all the way over to the right is slightly distracting, but not so much so that I won't vote for this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That event is always full of people and yesterday there was around 1000!!. I can remove this man, however, it not wil be the reality of the moment --The Photographer 12:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A great composition with Quebec's most prominent landmark in the background and colorfully dressed soldiers in front, but I think the background could nevertheless have been sharper. Daniel Case (talk) 22:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Daniel Case, thanks for your suggestion, however, I did this on purpose becasue the main subject is the guards and not the Château Frontenac. Additionally, this is technically not possible with the latest cameras and lens generation cover so much depth of field in an action picture. Having said all this, I used a combination of two images to get a clearer background, please let me know what do you think --The Photographer 00:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ There's ghosting from the merge. Even if there wasn't, the improved sharpness of the background is minimal. -- KTC (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KTC you're right, I rollbacked it --The Photographer 00:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 06:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Langer Eugen, Bonn, June 2018.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2018 at 04:00:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
Info The "Langer Eugen", Bonn, is Germany's tallest building with a steel frame. Designed in 1966 by Egon Eiermann, one of the leading postwar architects in Germany, the high-rise housed offices of the members of the Bundestag. Its facade was considered an eminent "example for the understanding of democratic construction." All by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support First I wowed, then I wondered what it actually is, and then I wowed again. --Podzemnik (talk) 04:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Podzemnik. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 06:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 08:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 12:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Optical illusion. Seems tilted, but isn't --Llez (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, drove me nuts... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 06:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fabbriche Nuove di Jacopo Sansovino Canal Grande Venezia.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2018 at 13:01:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Italy
Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 13:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 13:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me. Daniel Case (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think this is borderline. I quite like it, but I suppose what I'd need for it to be an FP is something interesting in the near left corner. Otherwise, it's pretty much there to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heliopsis helianthoides flower.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2018 at 10:33:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales
Info all by me. -- Lystopad (talk) 10:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lystopad (talk) 10:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In medio picturae rem principem non debere esse puto. Sputnik (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose minime vero, Sputnik - sed concrepatio me non delectat. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SPUTNIK 1: கடுமையான தலைவலியை நீங்கள் அனுபவிக்கிறீர்களா? --Karelj (talk) 08:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
confirmo recte vos! Imago vere beata est! Quid censes, Jebulon? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sed imago mihi valde placet. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmo Non est satis fugatur et esse in centro, non est a forsit. Daniel Case (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmo - Sed etiam imago mihi valde placet-- P999 (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
pro Latinam linguam hic legere bonus est ! Mihi felicem fac. Imago classica est, sed satisfecit qualitas. Cum P999 Johannque, Mihi placet. Les poissonnières de Marseille se plaignent de devoir nommer leurs poissons de leur nom binominal en latin, et je viens de me fâcher parce qu’on commence à rédiger en écriture « inclusive » sur la méta en français ! Merci de cette initiative !--Jebulon (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fore ut posset hic semper latine scribere! P999 (talk) 12:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vraiment lingua franca. MZaplotnik^(talk) 11:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simple and successful -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Acosmeryx shervillii mounted specimen, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2018 at 09:10:44 (UTC)

Male dorsal
Male ventral
Female dorsal
Female ventral

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info Acosmeryx shervillii mounted specimen male and female created and uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Olivier LPB -- Olivier LPB (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Olivier LPB (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! --Yann (talk) 09:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yep. Good idea to nominate these as sets.--Peulle (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 14:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sputnik (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC) Perosum blattae![reply]

@SPUTNIK 1: can you explain your vote please ? Olivier LPB (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SPutnik: கடுமையான தலைவலியை நீங்கள் அனுபவிக்கிறீர்களா? --Karelj (talk) 08:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Except for female ventral, the photos have weird circular artifacts on them. Archaeodontosaurus, please remove those. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: Quite true, I corrected the 3 images. Thanks to Olivier LPB for this nomination --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Thanks for the fix. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 05:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Acosmeryx shervillii mounted specimen, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2018 at 09:10:44 (UTC)

Male dorsal
Male ventral
Female dorsal
Female ventral

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info Acosmeryx shervillii mounted specimen male and female created and uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Olivier LPB -- Olivier LPB (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Olivier LPB (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! --Yann (talk) 09:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yep. Good idea to nominate these as sets.--Peulle (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 14:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sputnik (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC) Perosum blattae![reply]

@SPUTNIK 1: can you explain your vote please ? Olivier LPB (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SPutnik: கடுமையான தலைவலியை நீங்கள் அனுபவிக்கிறீர்களா? --Karelj (talk) 08:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Except for female ventral, the photos have weird circular artifacts on them. Archaeodontosaurus, please remove those. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: Quite true, I corrected the 3 images. Thanks to Olivier LPB for this nomination --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Thanks for the fix. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 05:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Treskavec karpi.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2018 at 12:03:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by Gadjowsky - uploaded by Gadjowsky - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I understand the appeal of the composition that contrasts the top of the building with the rocks, but I think the result is good and not great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan; also, the image has too much unsharpness and the colors are not vivid enough to make the contrast between the brick and the rock pop out. Daniel Case (talk) 05:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tuinen Mien Ruys (d.j.b.) 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2018 at 16:37:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants #Family Lamiaceae.
Info Mien Ruys Gardens. Monarda 'Jacob Cline'. (bergamotplant). All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like how the clouds in the background become almost abstract. Daniel Case (talk) 05:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh contrasts and the eccentric framing looks awkward -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile Morin Olivier LPB (talk) 13:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews.

Alternative[edit]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews.

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

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]