Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/November 2021

File:BLM mural in Greenpoint (35406p).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2021 at 13:23:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#United_States
Info A Black Lives Matter mural in Greenpoint, Brooklyn. Written in the letters is a partial list of names of black Americans killed by police from Eric Garner to George Floyd. It's a 49MP panorama not because it's so detailed or too big to fit in the frame, but to make sure all of the names are sufficiently big/visible. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work and valuable photo of contemporary history. Worth to be featured, imho. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Trougnouf (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 22:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cbrescia (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support @Rhododendrites: Just wondering, how did you manage to stitch this image? I can see from Google Street View that there is a lamp post in front of the mural, so you couldn't have taken it from across the street. Getting it perfectly rectilinear and free of parallax errors would seem very difficult to me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I had a couple different sets of frames to play with. What worked best (and what you see here) is a set of 5 vertical frames taken a couple feet from the sidewalk, stitched and perspective adjusted in Lightroom. The distortion wasn't so bad that the guided perspective correction couldn't do the trick. The clear lines probably helped avoid some problems in the stitching process, too. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_States#Freedom_of_panorama --Jebulon (talk) 12:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's names written in a straightforward manner within three larger letters. That does not to me, seem like it would surpass the threshold of originality. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is of course a work of art, painted on a wall in a public place. Let see what the discussion says. I have no problems if this picture is kept in Commons.--Jebulon (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain from voting until the DD is resolved (I agree that's copyright-ineligible in the US, but I don't think we should be voting on it for FP at the same time). Daniel Case (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: My approach is to just evaluate it on its photographic merits at FPC without regard to copyright issues (so long as it's not a blatant copyvio that would have no chance of surviving DR), and have the DR discussion separately without regard to its FP status. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case and King of Hearts: I think KoH is right. The vote should continue in spite of the DR. If it fails, it could be sad to miss a vote « pro » which could help for a fair promotion or a « contra » for a fair decline. I just express my personnal opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion above used to be more (ahem) common here. Go ahead, !vote if you want, but I'm not going to at present. Daniel Case (talk) 02:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Radomianin. (I have been told recently I should not mind FoP/© issues here on the FPC page. If that applies to French skyscrapers, it must also apply here. ;–) --Aristeas (talk) 07:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Late update w.r.t. the above discussion, Kept image -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bird mosaic by Jean-Michel Folon (DSC 2928).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2021 at 17:31:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
Info Mosaic by Jean-Michel Folon, picture by User:Trougnouf. -- Trougnouf (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find this mosaic and the overall framing calming and pleasant to look at. -- Trougnouf (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The white wall with the twigs of the wild vine add a nice mat (passe-partout) and frame to the mosaic. --Aristeas (talk) 08:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas Cmao20 (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Would be tempted to crop the edges a little all around. This would keep the passe-partout but also to bring more attention and focus to the mosaic. --GRDN711 (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Blackpoll warbler in GWC (24942).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2021 at 13:33:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Parulidae_(New_World_Warblers)
Info A tiny blackpoll warbler in its fall colors. Its body is more obscured than I would typically nominate, but what makes it an FP to me are the curves (that the curve of the bird matches the curves of the dogwood leaves) and color. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Also -- and this is a very minor thing that I appreciate as a birder, I know -- I love that its foot is almost highlighted amid the underside of a leaf. The orange color of a blackpoll's feet is the best way to tell this bird from a bay-breasted warbler in their nonbreeding plumage, so it's what we're always trying to see when making an identification this time of year. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like how the birdie is framed by the colorful leaves and fruits. Nice color composition, imho. Thanks for the helpful info about the bird's foot characteristic. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 22:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This one promoted last week was much better. Here the bird is partially hidden, the foreground blurry and distracting. Also the resolution is on the low side -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Basile Morin here, the FPs in that category are superior Poco a poco (talk) 09:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and sharp - at 600mm@FF. --Mile (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC) p.S. One quetion, all this birds, i see there are most from NY. Are all those birds wild ? Seem you have more birds than Africa.[reply]
- @PetarM: Thanks. Yes, they are all wild. New York City is, surprisingly, one of the best birding spots in the country. It is on the Atlantic flyway, has several kinds of habitats, and has a good position on the coast. There are also fewer options to land because there are buildings everywhere, so they all stop in the same large green areas (like this cemetery). During the spring and fall there are days when I go out and see 40-50 different species in a single park. This blackpoll is one of the migrants. I've only seen a few ever. They breed up in Canada and winter in South America, so there's a short period twice a year where we might see them flying through. If you're curious, here is a list of birds that have been seen in this cemetery (also, here is the spot in NYC with the largest number of species seen). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin. We can have both FPs, the gesture/positure of the bird is different. --Aristeas (talk) 07:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aristeas: Thanks. It's also a different species. :) They are both yellow this time of year, but blackpoll warblers are in a different family and less than half the size of scarlet tanagers. I presume Basile Morin was just comparing them because they were two of my nominations with similar colors. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good bird and I'm enjoying the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 11:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very sharp bird, I also like it because it's in its natural environment. --Cayambe (talk) 11:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely autumn colours and bright yellow bird. -- Colin (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Caracalla 6033 dettaglio Museo Nazionale Napoli.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2021 at 20:15:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Statues indoors
Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great, really striking "portrait" of a great ancient Roman sculpture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 08:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image with matching color background. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question have you applied vignetting in the postprocessing? Poco a poco (talk) 09:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No I havn't. I've tried it after your suggestion but I don't think it is any better. On the other side those exhibits in the museums have all sorts of strange lightening difficult to deal with. Cheers --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 10:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback, fine to me if it is like this for real, Poco a poco (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Statue seems great in thumb, but where is focus ? Even if i put it to 50% it is like unfocused. Otherwise i would put some more back on top. Second image is much better, just crop bottom, clear standing and would be similar like this. --Mile (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 18:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not sharp enough. -- Karelj (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Wow! Definitely one of the best photos of a sculpture I have ever seen – the bust itself, the angle of view, the light, the background colour, the soft vignetting etc. sum up to a vibrant, very adequate portrait of Caracalla’s problematic character. It’s a pity that the sharpness is not as great as the rest, but taking photos in museums is very difficult and the high resolution partially compensates for that. --Aristeas (talk) 08:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You did not saw mine, or what ?🤔😎--Jebulon (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Dear Jebulon, I am sorry but I do not understand your comment. It seems you are upset; I am sorry for that. I had not the intention to offend anybody by my comment. I said “one of the best photos”, not “the best photo”, so my comment does not deny that there are other photos of sculptures on the same level of “wow”. Of course your photos of sculptures, e.g. from Delphi (recently promoted) or from the Louvre, are also great. --Aristeas (talk) 06:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but I expect more sharpness. --Ivar (talk) 10:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with the opposes above, lots of pixel but the lighting conditions have been very tricky Poco a poco (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Aristeas.--Jebulon (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose Unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DoF too shallow, otherwise nice. --Kreuz schnabel 08:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose Beautiful, but really noticeably soft even when I simply let it fill my screen without zooming in. Feels like the sensor is out-performing the lens by miles in terms of resolution. That's unexpected from a high-end system like this. Maybe it's just a focus issue (fingers crossed!), but if that keeps happening with this lens (and this lens only), you might want to send it in for re-adjustment. --El Grafo (talk) 08:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for your review. I guess there is nothing wrong with the lens. Probably you didn't notice that the picture was taken with 1600 ISO for the light conditions and I'm not supposed to use a tripod in this museum. The noise reduction obviously reduced the sharpness. But the point is that FPCs and photos should be evaluated for what they are and what they comunicate and not what they should be according to the more or less high end equipment. I'm very satisfied with it even on a 32'' screen as many other reviewers. Cheers--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:De Viron Castle (DSC 2198).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2021 at 17:40:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Belgium
Info by --Trougnouf (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Trougnouf (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the shapes on the castle, and it's beautifully framed, as far as I'm concerned. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan Kekek. --Cayambe (talk) 11:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alexander-93 (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. (I would remove some of the tiny white objects (garbage?) from the lawn.) --Aristeas (talk) 08:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done I removed five suspicious objects from the lawn, good catch. :) --Trougnouf (talk) 08:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! ;–) IMHO even better now. --Aristeas (talk) 09:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok Poco a poco (talk) 11:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the improved version. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --🚇郭守敬故乡人🚄 15:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support …And the composition with the bush and the white bench at right makes the point !--Jebulon (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wet-blanket oppose The light is too soft, the composition is busy and a little awkward with a lot of extraneous objects (one of which, the tree on the left, intrudes into the building facade), and really looks like a pretty standard snapshot from across the water. Daniel Case (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality, correct composition but little magic in this photo. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan Kekek. Hulged (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Falaises d’Aval - Chambre des Demoiselles.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2021 at 15:50:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France#Normandy
Info View from the Falaises d’Aval in the near of the Chambre des Demoiselles to Étretat and the Porte d’Amont, Normandy, France. All by me. --Milseburg (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another beauty. Some really good nominations today. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not a fan of the composition, with the stone pillars reaching about the same height as the horizon, giving the scene a flat feeling overall and causing there to be too much empty space at the top left. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree that it would be even better when then stone pillars were higher in the frame than the horizon, but it is still a splendid view. No horror vacui ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 08:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose midday summerlight makes it imho unexceptional. --Ivar (talk) 10:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per KoH and I've to add that it's unfortunate that the right pilar is so close to the tip of the coast. The compo overal isn't working for me, Poco a poco (talk) 11:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support My taste : this is a very very nice picture, with a good light, an excellent depth of field and an outstanding sharpness. The place itself is magnificent.--Jebulon (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the feedback. The daylight provides authentic colors. Because of the abysses, it is difficult to vary the setting here. --Milseburg (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice composition. Cmao20 (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Close wing position of Amathuxidia amythaon (Doubleday, 1847) – Koh-i-Noor.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2021 at 07:39:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)
Info created by Atanu Bose Photography - uploaded by Atanu Bose Photography - nominated by Bodhisattwa -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 07:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 07:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support IQ so-so, compo is nice. --Mile (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't know how hard it is to find this butterfly. I take it that it's rare in India, but it does have a wide range. That said, I think this image is not sharp enough for FP at 40% of full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Nice composition but lack of detail at full resolution -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ceiling of the National Museum of Slovenia (Ljubljana).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2021 at 16:51:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural_elements#Painted_ceilings
Info Ceiling of the National Museum of Slovenia. Fisheye shot, hi-res. My work. --Mile (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 18:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ermell (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 05:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great capture, thanks to the long time exposure well lighted but still sharp, imho. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A beautiful ceiling, beautifully captured. --Aristeas (talk) 08:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Ivar (talk) 09:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now, this is definitely a FP to me Poco a poco (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --🚇郭守敬故乡人🚄 15:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe Zios and Vlodnik are a bit « thin » in their ovals, but it is an outstanding picture deserving the FP star IMO. Really interesting document about Slovenia.--Jebulon (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 05:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wonder how many images you stitched to get this... --Yann (talk) 18:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info @Yann One (1). --Mile (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Totally unsharp and noisy at edges? --A.Savin 20:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak regretful oppose per A. Savin. Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technical faults are acceptable considering very high resolution Cmao20 (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the sharpness near the edges is because they are walls, which are nearer than the ceiling. This is a common issue and not really important here as they are dark and form a vignette. I like the range of brightnesses. -- Colin (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Despite the acceptable quality, I don't find the subject deserving a FP star. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Carlisle Cathedral, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2021 at 14:40:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Looking east to the altar
Looking west to the organ

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#United Kingdom
Info Diliff's take on England's northernmost ancient cathedral. Together these two images show almost all the important architectural features of Carlisle Cathedral's interior including the east window (the largest and most complex of its style in the UK), the fifteenth-century choir stalls, the Victorian organ, and the strikingly colourful painted ceiling. created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pity that the light isn't brighter, but this is England. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Once again two incredible Diliff photos. --Aristeas (talk) 08:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Ivar (talk) 09:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The left one is definitely a FP to me (which I'd suppor as standalone) but I'm really struggling with the right one due to the lack of symmetry, sorry Cmao20. Poco a poco (talk) 11:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Symmetry is of course impossible for the image on the right, seeing that the building is not symmetrical. But if that means it isn't FP in your view than that is fine. I included the image on the right because I like the view of the organ, I agree the one looking east is better but to me they both independently deserve the star. Cmao20 (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For this kind of shot with a strong perspective effect guiding your eyes to the bottom of the image this does for me definitely play a role as there was symmetry there until you end up in that wall with the pipe organ off the center and the uninteresting wall. Poco a poco (talk) 07:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Famberhorst (talk) 05:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree, left is fine, but right one has bad compo, should be croped much better, left both glary windows out, crop till column, and some in bottom. Works much better. --Mile (talk) 08:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very interesting and complete document, and Diliff is a great master for a lot of us. Ok. But. I respectfully oppose because the same ceiling has different colors in the two photographs. The distortion is too prominent at left : look, the chairs in foreground are long like sunbathing beds on the beach. By the way, all that chairs are uninteresting, I think a picture taken closer to the altar, from the limit of the choir’s seats for instance, would have given a more detailed view on the magnificent stained glass window (I know Diliff’s purpose is to provide complete views more than detailed). Right part looks a bit « flat » to me, especially in colors, due to the comparison with the left one. No problem with the « no symmetry », the church is as it is. In my opinion, the pipes of the organ deserve a special picture as it looks so wonderful. Thanks and sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very sorry but per jebulon--Co mmon ists 18:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ left only, Oppose set/right per above opposers. @PetarM, Jebulon, and Commonists: Could you please indicate whether you'd support the left one as a standalone? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this vote is really possible - it will just confuse the bot which will interpret it as two separate votes one in favour and one against. I don't think there's a way that one can support one picture in a set and oppose another. I feel that the best thing to do would be to indicate whether you support or oppose the set as it stands, and then consensus will take its course. If the set does not pass, which appears quite possible, I will nominate the first image by itself. Cmao20 (talk) 09:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is why we have a human verify the count at the end. It is entirely acceptable for a set and an individual image in that set to go up against each other as alts, e.g. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lower Manhattan from Jersey City November 2014 panorama 1.jpg. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, as long as you're sure. Cmao20 (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Left one i would support. One bad idea of making a set, since one bad spoil other good shots. I go by that code, not by majority. --Mile (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @King of Hearts: For sure I oppose the set. I am not sure I’ll support the right part, neither the left, due to my previous rationales above. Anyway, I think a withdraw of the current set and an entire new process of nomination are necessary. If not, it will be confusing a lot.--Jebulon (talk) 10:50, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jebulon, I hear what you're saying but it's my nomination and I don't see any reason to withdraw a nomination that currently has a passing score. Cmao20 (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Cmao20. Of course this makes sense ! My answer was to the question of KoH.--Jebulon (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With the voting concluded as of ten minutes ago, I make this a clear consensus in favour of the first image (at least 11 support, 4 oppose, though it is clear that if it had been nominated by itself most if not all of these opposes would not have happened) and a 10 support, 5 oppose ratio for the second image, which means that both pass. So by my sums the nomination succeeds, although someone will need to close it manually otherwise the bot will interpret King of Hearts's vote as if it were two votes ~~and will automatically fail the nomination as 11 support, 6 oppose.~~ I would prefer not to perform the close myself in the interests of transparency. Cmao20 (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, the bit I struck through is nonsense and is the fault of me doing the maths wrong. The bot should correctly promote the nomination with an 11/5 score. But probably best for someone to check this manually anyway. Cmao20 (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the score should be 13/2/0 for standalone, and 10/5/0 for the set. However, contrary to a normal nomination with alts, where both cannot be promoted and only the one with higher support should be promoted, here both can be promoted, so the correct outcome should be to promote the set with 10/5/0. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info Please vote only once. And just vote for this candidature. Double votes create confusion when closing. Fixed. -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Жерловина Чёртов палец.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2021 at 00:39:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Crimea
Info: The Devil's Finger volcanic plug; all by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The centered composition makes for a bold, refreshing statement. I do wish there was some more sky on the left as the clouds look a bit cut off. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking, although it could be sharper in places. Cmao20 (talk) 09:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I cannot find wow here, sorry, and the detail is rather low --Poco a poco (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perfectly decent QI but not photographically exceptional. -- Colin (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I agree with Poco and the others. For me nothing special that makes this FP. The composition is interesting, but it does not strike me (perhaps just as a matter of taste). --Domob (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Poco et seq.. The sort of image that, as I've remarked before, probably makes sense to attempt when you see it but you can't quite take the picture that captures what made you want to take it. Nice colors, and I like what you were trying to do with the diagonal slope, but it just isn't coming through, and also it looks like it was a little oversharpened. Daniel Case (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Booster in the High Bay (51438375448).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2021 at 05:09:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Space exploration#Space launch vehicles
Info created by Lars Plougmann - uploaded by CactiStaccingCrane - nominated by CactiStaccingCrane -- CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Has some quality issues; I except more sharpness and detail. Also, it's a bit lacking in wow factor, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 07:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, cannot do much if you aren't a photographer :( CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The description of the picture should be expanded a bit, explaining what we are looking at (is this the first stage of the spacecraft? or what else?). “With non-articulated grid fins” is an additional hint, but not a sufficient description. --Aristeas (talk) 10:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will add a lot more later CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Certainly useful but I don’t see any skilled composition here, just the upper part of some unexplained detail of a bigger scene cut off at all edges. In full view, looking overprocessed/-sharpened and a bit of vertical motion blur. --Kreuz schnabel 10:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting, but surely more of a VI than an FP - nothing outstanding in terms of composition Cmao20 (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose And ...? And ...? Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not striking enough in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. I hold the same view as Basile Morin. Hulged (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hafnerberg Wallfahrtskirche Innenraum 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2021 at 09:01:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Austria
Info Interior of the pilgrimage church Hafnerberg, municipality of Altenmarkt an der Triesting, Lower Austria. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 13:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressively designed choir. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent despite the incoming sunlight.--Ermell (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Special. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Per Ikan Famberhorst (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 09:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mosbach - Altstadt - Palmsches Haus - Südostfassade - Mittelteil.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2021 at 10:36:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
Info Timber-framing detail from the Palmsches Haus, Mosbach, Germany. The Palmsches Haus, built in 1610, is a famous example of excellent timber framing. When you look at the whole house or at a complete photo, you don’t even know where to look first ;–). Therefore, in this photo I have only shown the “heart” of the representative south-east façade in order to achieve a somewhat refreshing composition. (Unfortunately, the left and right crops are a bit narrow, but that was unavoidable: a bay window follows on the left, an ugly downpipe on the right, both are distracting). All by me, --Aristeas (talk) 10:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the combination of regularity and irregularity in the timber framing which is emphasized by the composition. Thanks to Ikan for the suggestion to nominate this one! --Aristeas (talk) 10:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 12:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 13:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support in accordance with Aristeas' nomination statement! -- Radomianin (talk) 13:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the composition and the decorations on the building. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the few subjects where midday lighting is absolutely perfect. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting photo, many people would have missed this motif Cmao20 (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent picture and subject. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Replica of the Equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius in Rome (2).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2021 at 07:14:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Statues_outdoors
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 07:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 07:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 07:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background and foreground are too distracting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good to me. The background and foreground probably won't change for another thousand years. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a QI. I struggle to find the wow here, sorry. The subject is a bit boring, and the composition too -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Not only a good situational photo of that famous statue, the photo captures also something of the special “Rome at night” atmosphere. --Aristeas (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The background and foreground derive from someone called Michelangelo --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 05:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile Poco a poco (talk) 07:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. Solid work but nothing outstanding. --Kreuz schnabel 08:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 19:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The background is still too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit soft in places but still FP Cmao20 (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 07:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a QI. Where is the photographic "wow"? -- Colin (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 20:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Altpörtel IMG 0636.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2021 at 15:28:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements # Towers in Germany/Speyer
Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aloxe (talk) 10:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice shot, but not special with the random placement of people that doesn't serve your composition. I would have supported at QIC, but I think we need more for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I completely get the arguments of those who only see this as QI but it is better than that for me. I like the wispy clouds, and the warm light falling on the tower. Cmao20 (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 22:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ansel Adams - National Archives 79-AA-E23 levels adj.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2021 at 19:22:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created by Ansel Adams, uploaded by Kaldari, nominated by Yann (talk)
Support Lovely leaves texture, by a famous photographer. -- Yann (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning Seven Pandas (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this specific digitally modified version with a local adjustment in the upper left corner (according to the RetouchedPicture Template at the bottom). Ansel Adams was a (maybe the) master of the darkroom print, inventor of the zone system. Careful manipulation of tones was his thing, doing print after print with minor tweaks until he got it just right. I think it's safe to assume that if he had wanted that milkiness in the corner removed he would have done that. Note that (similar to adding a vignette) reducing contrast at the edges is a method to make things in the centre "pop" more, so this may well have been done on purpose as an artistic choice. I don't think doing anything other than global adjustments on the scan (setting black and white points etc.) is appropriate here.

And even global adjustments should be done with great care. Some of the leaves in the third row that are clearly visible as mid-tones in the unedited version are now disappearing into the shadows (it helps to look at the files at some distance or smaller sizes in this case). Since the original scan seems to be of decent quality, unless you have the actual print in your hand for reference, it does not make sense to make any adjustments here at all, imo. --El Grafo (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El Grafo: Thanks for your detailed analysis. Should I offer the original image as an alternative? Yann (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: worth a try, I'd support it! --El Grafo (talk) 07:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose see below --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ansel Adams - National Archives 79-AA-E23.jpg[edit]

Support Original image, as per El Grafo's comment above. Yann (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful 1942 picture. The original is sufficient for FP status IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I know Adams is considered a great photographer, but why is there a white border? Is a higher resolution scan possible? Buidhe (talk) 04:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ That's what NARA has freely offered so far. Sadly, high-res scans, with or without borders (not crucial to me) don't seem to be available. Adam's work should be PD by now, at least in many cases. Anyway, I don't consider this image to rank among Adam's finest or most exemplary photographs. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've reconsidered after reading El Grafo's powerful argument --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Genre-wise, Adams is mainly known for his black-and-white langscapes. But, as I wrote above, he's also a master of the darkroom printing process. I'm by no means an expert, and while I have shot a couple rolls of BW film in the last years, I have never done a print myself. That being said, I think this is an excellent demonstration on how to use tone (i.e. different shades of grey) to shape a BW photograph. The "negative vignette" has already been mentioned above. Notice how the different layers are separated by different tones all the way to the back where the bottom layer of fern is just about bright enough to clearly peek out of the deep shadows. Notice how there are clearly defined textures from the brightest highlights to all but the darkest shadows. And all of that from a single exposure (well, two if you count the print itself).

Also, in terms of composition, there is a surprising amount order/structure in what at a first glance looks like a random snap of some leaves. The shiny maple leaf in the centre is sitting on a foundation of more shiny leaves. The next layer of fern and conifers embraces the central leaf (follow the major lines of the twigs: they form a circle).

The white border is there, because this was hand-printed in the darkroom, not in a drug store's minilab. Adams did not crop it, so why should we? We don't crop excess borders of paintings or maps either.

The WOW in this image is not something that jumps straight at you from the first sight. It requires the viewer to investigate the image closely (the image as a whole, not the individual pixels/grains it is made of), and it may require some background knowledge. Maybe I'm biased because of its author, but you can see from this wall of text that I am very much WOWed by the amount of craftsmanship and skill that went into this seemingly simple image of a couple of leaves. --El Grafo (talk) 09:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per El Grafo. --Aristeas (talk) 07:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Ansel Adams - National Archives 79-AA-E23.jpg

File:Red-kneed Dotterel - Pitt Town Lagoon.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2021 at 15:59:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus_:_Erythrogonys
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Ivar (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another solid FP for JJ Harrison Cmao20 (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20 -- Radomianin (talk) 06:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's a great shot (light, composition, bokeh -- typical of JJ's work), but it is a bummer that a picture of a "red-kneed" dotterel would have the knees blurred. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The legs are a pity but the plumage and specially the eye have lots of detail Poco a poco (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 13:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 20:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 14:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 08:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus_:_Erythrogonys

File:Afgevallen kastanje van een Tamme kastanje (Castanea sativa) 17-10-2021 (d.j.b.) 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2021 at 08:20:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Fagaceae
Info created & uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 08:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 08:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The subject is awesome with very nice yellow colour, though there are some small stacking errors (notes added). --Ivar (talk) 10:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I don't see the notes! As soon as I see them, I'm going to fix the mistakes.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Famberhorst: notes are on the nomination page. --Ivar (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. 3 minor corrections.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ivar -- Radomianin (talk) 10:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for the nomination of my photo.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice subject and detail Poco a poco (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 09:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 10:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Massive Beauty (Jupiter) by NASA.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2021 at 12:10:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy#Jupiter
Info created by NASA/JPL-Caltech - uploaded by Realmaxxver - nominated by Realmaxxver -- Realmaxxver (talk) 12:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Realmaxxver (talk) 12:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is that as big as it gets? An image of the whole planet is more interesting than the photo of a smaller sliver of it, but it would be nice to be more overwhelmed by the size of it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support in spite of that, because of wow. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I kind of like not seeing its belts purely horizontal, and not seeing the Great Red Spot, either. Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I love space pics but this one is just too small for me. There are better pictures of Jupiter available. Cmao20 (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing really special. Just a good astronomy shot. --Yann (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 20:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Raphael - The Alba Madonna - Google Art Project.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2021 at 07:21:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Religion#Christianity
Info created by Raphael - uploaded by DcoetzeeBot - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 07:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 07:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 10:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 10:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely Cmao20 (talk) 09:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great painting, all detailed. --Mile (talk) 09:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sympetrum flaveolum male - Kulna.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2021 at 08:28:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Libellulidae (Chasers, Skimmers, Darters and others)
Info created & uploaded by Iifar - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I guess it did come out quite good. Thank you for the nomination, Tomer T. --Ivar (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Stunning. Very well done -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 10:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support(⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)PROPOLI87(⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Basile, really a great picture! --Domob (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Basile Poco a poco (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Basile.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really stunning. --Aristeas (talk) 08:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile, amazing photo that really excels in composition, quality and colours. Cmao20 (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 20:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Piling on. --Yann (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 08:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Illustration emperor penguin swimming in water.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2021 at 14:38:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Others#Animals
Info created by Goran tek-en - uploaded by Goran tek-en - nominated by Goran tek-en -- --please ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --please ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If I look at this like a photo, it would be nicer if there were lead room below the bird. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info Ikan Kekek That would be a matter of opinion, to me the position of the bird indicates that it's diving deep. Also when talking about composing an image look at en:Rule_of_thirds, if you imaging a horisontal line thru the center of the body (it's diving down so it's not exact) it will be approximately one third up from the bottom. This is not a must rule but it works mostly. --please ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 11:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:A floral fantasy of animals and birds, India, Mughal.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2021 at 11:43:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Others
Info created by unknown artist, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 11:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info Opaque watercolor and gold on paper; early 1600s; page: 37.6 x 26.6 cm (14 13/16 x 10 1/2 in.). The Cleveland Museum of Art, Gift in honor of Madeline Neves Clapp; Gift of Mrs. Henry White Cannon by exchange; Bequest of Louise T. Cooper; Leonard C. Hanna Jr. Fund; From the Catherine and Ralph Benkaim Collection 2013.319. Photographed by Howard Agriesti.
Info Derived ultimately from a conflation of medieval Persian and Qur'anic sources, including descriptions of the mythical island of Waq-waq inhabited by half-plant/half-animal creatures, this extraordinary painting depicts a plant that brings forth animal life in multiple forms. Playfully rendered with animals both real and mythic and birds that seem to effervesce away as they break free of the stems, this brilliant rendition of a life-giving plant maintains its compositional integrity, even as it sprawls across the page. This painting was made to beguile courtly connoisseurs who would gather to admire the wondrous images in an imperial album.
Support 151 Megapixel and high quality reproduction by the museum. -- Yann (talk) 11:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 13:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support That degree of resolution is really valuable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, and it’s also a very beautiful and surprising picture. --Aristeas (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 19:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sanderling beim Fressen 08.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2021 at 08:11:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus : Calidris
Info created by Ssprmannheim - uploaded by Ssprmannheim - nominated by Ssprmannheim -- Ssprmannheim (talk) 08:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ssprmannheim (talk) 08:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurred bottom is distracting. Yann (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Good quality and nice focus on the head of the bird but I agree with Yann, the blur at the bottom is so much that it is quite intrusive to me. Cmao20 (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am not bothered by the foreground. WB is a bit on the blue side but within the range of acceptability for me (I've checked and the feathers are pure white; usually we expect them to have a slightly yellow tint on a sunny day, but this is fine as well). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Yann, but really it just doesn't stand out like our other bird FPs do. Daniel Case (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ujujad Ohepalu järve kõrval asuvas laukas 2021. aasta juulis.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2021 at 06:15:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Estonia
Info created by Sillerkiil - uploaded by Sillerkiil - nominated by Sillerkiil -- Sillerkiil (talk) 06:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sillerkiil (talk) 06:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting landform. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice motiv, but a bit too noisy IMO and the people seem oversaturated --Llez (talk) 09:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info Llez: peat bog lakes have a characteristic brown colour, which comes from dissolved peat tannins. --Ivar (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting but not striking. Daniel Case (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd probably like this photo more if it were cropped a little closer on the left, but still an FP to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Daniel Case. It would help if the description were in English. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dülmen, St.-Viktor-Kirche, Aufgang zum Kirchturm -- 2021 -- 6700-2 (bw, crop).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2021 at 16:49:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 16:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info I'd already a (not featured) nomination of this image, but with another crop. This one is cropped based on a idea of Jebulon (Thank you!). --XRay 💬 16:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 16:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, way better than the original nomination. And the creepy mood is quite appropriate for the coming Halloween. Long live minimalism! -- Alvesgaspar 21:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, better than the previous nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed even better. --Aristeas (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Domob (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Alvesgaspar -- Radomianin (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Basílica de San Jorge, Victoria, isla de Gozo, Malta, 2021-08-22, DD 14-16 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2021 at 21:05:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Malta
Info Ceiling of the Saint George Basilica, Victoria, Gozo Island, Malta. The St. George's Basilica or San Ġorġ in Maltese is a historic Baroque church situated in the Cittadella of Victoria, the fortified old town in the middle of Gozo, the second largest island in the Maltese archipelago, and is surrounded by a maze of old narrow streets and alleys. Today's basilica was built between 1672 and 1678. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Again and again this overwhelming splendor of the old sacral buildings. Plus the tasty cherry on the top: the lovely starburst effects! -- Radomianin (talk) 12:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin. --Aristeas (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very detailed and nice, though I think you went a bit overboard with the highlight recovery (leading to grey haloes around the lights), but I'm just nitpicking here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 08:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As KoH notes, the highlight recovery produces some odd results, which are quite apparent without pixel peeping. The lamps themselves should be as bright as the image can show. Yet some are very much mid grey (e.g. far left top group of three) and the others are mid cream. This is what happens when people keep moaning incorrectly about blown highlights: a light source far exceeds the dynamic range of any camera and certainly exceeds what a JPG can render. The grey halo round the lights is quite distracting. It could be this isn't highlight recovery but an attempt at hiding rainbow flare as seen in the top left middle light. These flaws are fixable. -- Colin (talk) 08:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support now. The sunstars now look correct at their centres. Poco, I do still think you should ping all reviewers when you make a big change, not just those who commented negatively. For example, some may be upset about the widows. As we've seen on other noms, sometimes pleasing one person ruins the image for someone else. -- Colin (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek, Radomianin, Aristeas, Florstein, and King of Hearts: just to inform you that highlights are stronger in the current version per the discussion in this page. Poco a poco (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well done Your editing has enhanced the quality of this beautiful photo. Thank you :) -- Radomianin (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. It's probably a bit better this way. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I miss some contrast here. Color space could be changed from Uncalibrated to RGB. --Mile (talk) 09:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC) p.S. This is what i get with copy-paste.[reply]
Comment @King of Hearts, Colin, and PetarM: Ok, I reduced the highlights correction, which guides also to an increase of contrast. I also reworked the purple flare in the middle top left light and exported the JPEG in the sRGB color space, that setting was standard in my export but probably with a Lr update it got lost. Poco a poco (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was a good case to show that "Uncalibrated space" is an issue. Also, i knew you would push windows, since i was trying early. They were better in 1st shot, but they made maybe 5% of space where ceiling is 95 %. I would support if that would be covered manually, since software slicing won't. --Mile (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Much better and more interesting with the highlight correction toned down. Cmao20 (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 19:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Church of the Redeemer, Toronto, Canada.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2021 at 21:13:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Canada
Info created & uploaded by User:Maksimsokolov - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek. This is an example of an older building being completely overwhelmed by taller modern buildings behind it, but the building immediately behind it has quite interesting architecture, in my opinion, with the steps on top on both sides, so I find the composition very intriguing. I recognize that whether to judge this an FP is a question of balancing the photo's strengths with its weaknesses but believe it's worth a nomination and look forward to reading your opinions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course, here is something different! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hulged (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Imho it is a clear FP image: a balanced dynamic range and a great light, shadow and color harmony. The interplay of different and similar building structures is fascinating. In short, I love this composition. -- Radomianin (talk) 11:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin. (I was thinking about nominating this one myself, so thank you, Ikan, especially for this nomination!) --Aristeas (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Normally, I'd say this was a good example of the problem of extreme wide angle perspective distortion. The upper floors of that building on the left appear larger than the ground floors (they are further away, yet the perspective has maintained their size). So I'd oppose if they were the only subject. But here the contrast is being emphasised like some cartoon effect and it works to make the point. -- Colin (talk) 08:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 10:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Old stylishly meets new Cmao20 (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clever juxtaposition. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This really is telling a story. --Kreuz schnabel 12:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 19:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support pretty much per Colin --El Grafo (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 10:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]

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

File:Lower Manhattan from Governors Island with a fishing boat (46294p).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2021 at 21:03:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#United States
Info A 183 MP panorama of Lower Manhattan viewed from Governors Island. See file page for extensive labeling. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A couple years ago I nominated a picture from a similar perspective. I think this one is substantially better, not just in resolution, but in the light, color, and sky. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Humongous image, very nice overall. (By the way, did you go out to photograph anything this afternoon? The clouds were absolutely stunning. I was in Gowanus.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Went out briefly in Sunset Park (a dog costume contest in the park, and a brief walk around the cemetery), but don't think I got anything very special. Haven't looked yet. Glad it sounds like you had some successes, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Rhododendrites' voting statement. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Warm autumn light, the composition is complemented by the fishing boat, birds in the sky add little accents – very beautiful! --Aristeas (talk) 08:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 08:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 08:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support What matrix was used ? Anyway, it could be beter without multiplyer. Maybe i would put boat out and do just skyline, with less water. --Mile (talk) 09:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Roughly 4x10 (some variation in the horizontal number). I rather like the boat. I wish it were ever so slightly further down in the frame, to have the water separate it and the island, but I like that detail. Helps to balance the height of One World Trade IMO. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 10:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very instructive. High resolution and quality with informative label work. I suggest adding the pano-template. --Milseburg (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I notice 3 apparent stitching errors in the water (1 is clear), near the bottom margin. I don't think I could mark them effectively. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I did find a few seams in the water. Tried to address them and uploading a new version now. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have taken to liberty to propose another gallery link. Most similar photos, including our Manhattan skyline photos, are on the Cityscapes gallery page, so this one should go there, too ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 10:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Looks great. --Hulged (talk) 11:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's quite noticeably (as in "I could tell from the thumb!") leaning to the right in case u want to fix that nice panorama :) - Benh (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Uploaded a new version with a very small CCW rotation. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 19:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent Cmao20 (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 13:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support You had me when I found I could read the exit signs on the FDR Drive. I do very much like the juxtaposition of the guys on the small boat fishing like it was just some local lake with the skyline of one of the world's most important financial nerve centers behind it. Reminds me of what I felt in this picture, years ago in a different major international harbor. Daniel Case (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 08:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Жерловина Чёртов палец2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2021 at 06:10:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Crimea
Info: The Devil's Finger volcanic plug; all by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm. A huge dust spot and very dark shadows ... --XRay 💬 10:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Inferior to Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Жерловина Чёртов палец.jpg. The rock is too close to the top edge, and the shadow is distracting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not only the shadows are dark. How would this photo look if you made it a bit brighter in general (without clipping the highlights, please)? Maybe it is worth a try … --Aristeas (talk) 10:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose This has been taken from a much better point of view than your previous nom, showing the rock entirely. It’s only the tight crop on the top, and the dominant shadows. Can you take another pic like this one when the sun is a bit higher in the sky? --Kreuz schnabel 12:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done: brightened, added more sky XRay, King of Hearts, Aristeas, Kreuzschnabel --The Cosmonaut (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good composition and motif but too much of the photograph is in shadow. Definitely could be FP if reshot when the light is more favourable. Cmao20 (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfavorable shadow -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nelumbo July 2011-3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2021 at 14:48:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Nelumbonaceae
Info A bud of an Indian Lotus (Nelumbo nucifera) photographed against a leaf of the same plant, in the Jardin des Plantes, Paris. No montage involved. This picture was nominated ten years ago and I was never resigned with the comments and outcome (here). All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I actually thought "wow!" when I saw this, so … --El Grafo (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per El Grafo, Poco a poco (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but the resolution is too low for me. --Ivar (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info I went to the original file of 2011 and made the best possible crop. It is larger now but not much Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ivar, and even at this low resolution it is a bit soft at 100%. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Excellent, striking composition, but it is certainly a bit small Cmao20 (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me, composition and aesthetics trumps technical aspects, in particular when it comes to resolution. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Compo is out, flower should be aligned to centre, now is out. Low resolution. --Mile (talk) 09:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I think we need more than to be wowed at thumbnail. The resolution, 2.7MP, is way low for 2021, and the image is relatively easily taken. -- Colin (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others, too small indeed. --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 01:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kirschholzbrett -- 2021 -- 7656.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2021 at 21:55:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
Info This nomination is a bit of a risk and I completely understand if you think it is just too abstract to be FP, but I really love the shapes, colours and textures at play here. Also, any suggestions for a better gallery? created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish it were sharp corner-to-corner, not because it is necessary for this type of subject, but because the out-of-focus areas interfere with the illusion of compression and lack of depth. Nonetheless, I really like the composition and colors. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 07:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. --Aristeas (talk) 09:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Modern art in nature. --Yann (talk) 09:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 11:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support very nice colours, but imo it should have been more sharp, since it's easy subject to shoot. --Ivar (talk) 12:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Ivar Poco a poco (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Ivar -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 13:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per King. Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty bland picture, with no specific point that holds attention. Just patches of yellow and some red -- Dey.sandip (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Health and Wellness - woman with gloves and stethoscope.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2021 at 20:47:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People_at_work
Info created by Mona Hassan Abo-Abda - uploaded by Mona Hassan Abo-Abda - nominated by Ciell -- Ciell (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ciell (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Why do you think this is one of the greatest photos on the site? I would oppose this at QIC on technical grounds, and I'm not seeing what's special about it (OK, the woman is pretty, but that doesn't make a photo an FP). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No description, apart from the general template {{Wiki Loves Africa 2021 country}}, important noise, and not special enough -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really liked this image and didn't mind the subject was a bit noisy at 100%. But it is either a composite (doctor pasted into empty hospital corridor) or the corridor has been adjusted (blue colour tone and smoothing) separately from the doctor. So there's too much unexplained manipulation for FP. Shame. -- Colin (talk) 11:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thank for all the feedback! Ciell (talk) 11:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alba sulla colonica abbandonata - Sunrise on the abandoned farmhouse.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2021 at 11:14:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Agriculture#Italy
Info created by PROPOLI87 - uploaded by PROPOLI87 - nominated by PROPOLI87 -- (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 11:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Abstained as the author of the photo (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 11:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CommentA dawn with delicate colors with the strip of fog, typical of autumn, in the splendid countryside of the Valdarno Fiorentino gives a sense of peace. Taken this morning (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)PROPOLI87(⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful atmosphere. Quality is not the best but fine IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice picture. Shame about the rope on the road.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King of Hearts. Well, even the rope on the road contributes to the feeling of desolation ;–). I have proposed another gallery link; IMHO this image fits best into the “Agriculture” gallery. --Aristeas (talk) 08:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Beautiful composition, really artistic, but I'm troubled by the issues in image quality. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:50, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Beautiful motif but the image quality is borderline. Cmao20 (talk) 09:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "WARNING: No color-space metadata and no embedded color profile". Seems overprocessed -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is an awesome composition and I congratulate the photographer for it. But the image lacks quality and I agree with Basile Morin that it looks overprocessed. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are elements of this that are nice (though al sunsets are pretty), but the foreground isn't appealing, the sky has vapour trails, the subject small and obscured and the technical quality is to weak to permit a further crop. -- Colin (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The interest here is the convergence of the path, the vapour trails, and the background mountains. With the sunset, that makes it FP. --Yann (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful weak oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice motif, but Quality could be beter and Color space set. --Mile (talk) 10:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support to me the composition and theme are enough for a support. Please add more specific category about the place.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done(⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)PROPOLI87(⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crestasee panosphere 20210614.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2021 at 12:03:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland#Grisons_(Graubünden)
Info created by Domob - uploaded by Domob - nominated by Domob -- Domob (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a spherical panoramic, which should be viewed either with the online viewer linked on the file page (but note that it doesn't show full quality/resolution!), or a stand-alone application like Panini. --Domob (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I love the peaceful atmosphere of this picture, which pefectly captures how the feeling at the lake really was. Also there are not too many other spherical panoramic FPs of natural places, most of them are buildings. --Domob (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Domob (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support(⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)PROPOLI87(⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there anything you can do about the lens flares, and there is also one area of the sky which is darker than the rest, otherwise great! Poco a poco (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing specific (like use different frames for the panorama). But since it is just on the blue sky, I guess it would be straight-forward to edit it out with Gimp. I didn't bother to do that because it does not obstruct anything (i.e. is not "in the way") and I actually like the vibe it gives to the picture. I'm happy to try and edit it out though if you and others prefer that. --Domob (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would cut off the lower part.--Ermell (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ermell: While the lower part may look unpleasant when looking at the flat image, it is an essential component of the 360 view. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination – really a peaceful, restful atmosphere. --Aristeas (talk) 08:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry for rowing against the flood. No doubt this is a very good picture technically, but there is nothing in here that rings my wow bells. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alvesgaspar. Only a small part of the view is pleasant and even then not exactly postcard material. The rest is some nearby trees, some muddy grass and some blue sky. I think a 360 should reward the viewer with something amazing all around, or at the very least, front and back. -- Colin (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! I see what you mean, and it does make sense. However, I also see value in spherical panoramics for being immersive in a nice place. Also the lake and the bordering trees take up at least 180 degrees of the FOV (not just a tiny portion). --Domob (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Very good quality, but ordinary scene. Sorry. --Milseburg (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with the low wow level and believe that lens flares should be removed along with the unequal sky luminosity Poco a poco (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked on the lens flare and sky now. --Domob (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pleasant but not extraordinary, in my opinion, and why does this text come up when I open the panorama viewer? "A better version is being prepared - I'll let you know when it is done." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The online panorama viewer seems to be having issues (already for some months) and shows a very limited resolution/quality (plus the message you mention). This has nothing to do with the picture itself (and applies in fact to all spherical panoramics on commons I believe); you can use a standalone viewer application like Panini to view it in full quality. --Domob (talk) 09:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like us to use a different viewer, could you include a link to it on your file page? -- Ikan Kekek (talk

) 19:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I'm not aware of another viewer that can just be linked (rather than having to install an application, download the file and open it with it). The one linked used to work in the past and seems to be the standard for commons (e.g. also used in a couple of Wikipedia articles directly). Note that this is something applying to all spherical panoramics on commons, nothing specific to this one. --Domob (talk) 09:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Switzerland#Grisons_(Graubünden)

File:הקרוסלה העברית הראשונה.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2021 at 07:06:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Other#Israel
Info created by Giladtop - uploaded by Giladtop - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 07:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 07:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. Just … WOW! Definitely one of my favourites this year. --El Grafo (talk) 07:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 10:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something really different Poco a poco (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support At the first glance looks like a photo of some toys etc.; it’s a great surprise when you recognize the carousel, the sunshades, etc. --Aristeas (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas Cmao20 (talk) 09:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support First guess was a circuitboard; second guess was a game of some kind. Didn't realize it was an aerial shot until reading the description :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I can't see either the beauty of the image or the exceptionality of the subject. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 14:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought it was random objects next to a dartboard on a pub wall or something. Then I thought the street lights were game controllers of some kind ... Daniel Case (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 13:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unique perspective on subject --cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 22:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Close wing Mud puddling activity of Charaxes kahruba (Moore,1895) – Variegated Rajah.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2021 at 16:21:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)
Info created by Atanu Bose Photography - uploaded by Atanu Bose Photography - nominated by Bodhisattwa -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Impressive as preview but at 100 percent, it looks oversharpened (bright seams e.g. around the antennae, sharpened graininess in background). I suggest to replace it by a slightly softer version. --Kreuz schnabel 17:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rather small resolution -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Way below the current butterfly and macro standards, I think. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Alvegaspar. Composition is not that special and the background is sort of noisy. Daniel Case (talk) 02:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pabda Jhaal - Home- Kolkata - West Bengak.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2021 at 19:07:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Food
Info created by Nilanjan Sasmal - uploaded by Nilanjan Sasmal - nominated by Bodhisattwa -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good capture of an appetizing presentation: considering the main dish and rice garnish are in focus, I plead for supporting. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We need for there to be more categories. Would you like to take care of that, Bodhisattwa? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let me be specific: There needs to be a category for the rice, which I figure to be basmati rice. There needs to be a category for the cilantro. And whatever the nuts are on the left, they should have a category. A category for the chilis would also be nice but doesn't seem quite as essential. Once there is a sufficient number of categories, I will support. I might look for the categories myself, but I am very busy today. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the name of the file also contains the misspelling of "West Bengak", which should be corrected after the nomination period is over. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added Category:Basmati rice, Category:Coriandrum sativum (cilantro) and Category:Green chili peppers, but could someone please tell me what kind of nuts are on the left and what kind of chilis we're looking at? It's slightly annoying that if I want this done right, I have to do it myself and the nominator was unwilling to do this work either when I asked for it on QIC or now, though they did add one category, but if someone just helps me by telling me what categories to search for, I will complete the work. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your research @Ikan Kekek: I guess the garnish in the upper left seems to be not nuts, but some kind of dumpling or pastry, according to my research. Unfortunately, I could not determine this more precisely. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fair enough. Do you (or does anyone else) know what type of chilis we're looking at? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I could not exactly determine the green chili peppers (Hindi: Hari Mirch). Perhaps the Category:Capsicum frutescens would be appropriate. -- Radomianin (talk) 10:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to make the change if that seems better. Thanks for your input. :-) Anyone else have an opinion? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Ikan Kekek: for adding all the relevant categories. The upper left items beside cilantro, as pointed out by @Radomianin: , are sun-dried lentil dumplings (vadi/badi/bori/বড়ি). Unfortunately, couldn't find a related category. --Sumit Surai (talk) 06:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. And thanks for looking! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added the category Ompok bimaculatus for the fish. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 18:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Hulged (talk) 06:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The rice is partly overexposed -- Llez (talk) 07:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 11:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Danu Widjajanto (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin. --Aristeas (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sumit Surai (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 11:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin Cmao20 (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food and drink#Food

File:Pietro Bembo - Titian - Museo di Capodimonte (Naples).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2021 at 18:50:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/People#Paintings
Info created by Commonists - uploaded by Commonists - nominated by Commonists -- Co mmon ists 18:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Co mmon ists 18:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think FP nominations of individual hung paintings have to be judged against the humongous, super-sharp reproductions we've been seeing, and by comparison, correct me if I'm wrong, but this photo seems noisy and unsharp at high magnifications. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually the photo is very sharp, you can see the canvas very well, it is not blurred but rather the style of Titian that is defined as "dirty" unlike other artists:"Titian was always highly regarded during these centuries as one of the great Old Masters, but critics during this time preferred Raphael, for his more obvious reverence for the art of antiquity.

This dispute between what is basically conservativism and progressivism stemmed from the differing opinions of draftsmanship during the Italian Renaissance. While artists like Raphael and Michelangelo preferred their paintings to be precisely drawn, precision was not as important to Venetian artists like Titian."[1], and anyway 30 mpx seem enough. Greetings.--Co mmon ists 23:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that sharp at full or nearly full size, and I doubt that the kind of color noise I see is actually in small-groups-of-pixels or pixel-level areas on the painting. I love Tician's work, so it's not a question of my being unfamiliar with his style. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see it very clearly, then we simply see it differently. Greetings.--Co mmon ists 00:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gallery link refined ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 08:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment License is wrong. This is public domain -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done thank you --Co mmon ists 18:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ikan. Seems to be a fair amount of artifacts in the dark corners of the image as well. Daniel Case (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

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

File:Вид на Судак с мыса Алчак.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2021 at 20:03:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Crimea
Info: View from Cape Alchak; all by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The file size is not very user-friendly, but the richness of detail is overwhelming.--Ermell (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ermell. I would prefer less sharpening, e.g. on the sea, but it’s OK. --Aristeas (talk) 08:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ermell and Aristeas -- Radomianin (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Correct composition, very detailed, but little magic. One of the reasons is the boring colours (not the photographer's responsibility). Maybe the image is too blue. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Overall very good. Authentic light and colors. --Milseburg (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I second Alvesgaspar's complaint about the colors, but to me this has FP potential. The WB just needs to be made warmer. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The crop at the bottom is a bit arbitrary, but still good. Cmao20 (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I second Alves and KoH on the colour temperature. This is freezing me by just looking at it. --Kreuz schnabel 12:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 19:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Warming it up might help, but it won't make FP looking as ... well, processed as this does at full-res. Daniel Case (talk) 04:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done: made warmer. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Iglesia de San Sebastián, Setúbal, Portugal, 2021-09-10, DD 10-12 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2021 at 16:31:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Portugal
Info General interior view of the parish Church of Saint Sebastian (in Portuguese «Igreja Paroquial de São Sebastião»), Setúbal, Portugal. The original church of São Sebastião was a small hermitage, built around 1490 on the site of the current viewpoint of the city of Setúbal. The current parish church of São Sebastião, located in the Dominican convent, was founded between 1564 and 1566, in a work sponsored by D. Sebastião. The design of the temple is attributed to Afonso Álvares, royal architect who built the churches of São Roque, in Lisbon, and Espírito Santo, in Évora. The work of the church of São Sebastião de Setúbal stands out for the military design of its structure, certainly derived from the training of Afonso Álvares as a military engineer. The interior, with a single nave, has interconnecting side chapels, and was originally covered by a barrel vault, destroyed in the earthquake and replaced by a wooden roof. Although it is not a Jesuit temple, its design fits into an architectural typology disclosed by the Society of Jesus in the second half of the 16th century, resulting in a building of large proportions, with a large and bright interior space, preceded by an imposing and austere façade. Although it has undergone some structural changes, the church of São Sebastião can be defined as "a remarkable building in the evolution of Portuguese architecture in the second half of the 16th century" and is listed as National Portuguese Monument (Idem, p.50). c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A beautiful church, the light is good, the photo really impressive. --Aristeas (talk) 08:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clear FP. I actually really like the wider crop here, it adds a bit of variety. Cmao20 (talk) 09:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support For the beauty of the subject and the technical excellence. Maybe the whole image should be slightly compressed horizontally, to minimize the distortion near the left and right borders. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alvesgaspar: Thanks for the hint, I corrected the aspect ratio a bit Poco a poco (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it "corrected", though? The feature of a rectilinear lens and rectilinear projection of a stitched panorama, is that a flat surface perpendicular to the camera's point-of-view is rendered correctly in all proportions. So the far walls, and in particular the central paintings and figures, should be correct in the original. If they were correct, then the new version has stretched them vertically and gives a wrong impression of the proportions of the arch, etc. The side walls are of course stretched by this projection and not representative of reality. This is simply a consequence of a wide angle rectilinear, and the only solution is to narrow the angle-of-view either by cropping or standing further back when taking the photo. Or to accept and live with that distortion. I don't think we should just randomly go about changing the proportions of cathedrals so that already-distorted side walls look less bad. -- Colin (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nothing is corrected one way or another. All "photographic projections" are conventional plane representations of reality, just like when we project the spherical surface of the world on a plane. In mathematical cartography we choose a certain projection to preserve certain geometric properties, for example, relative areas or angles. Distortions of the other properties are inevitable. Thus I don't see the point in respecting the geometry of a rectilinear projection (or any other) when the goal should usually be to look right to our eyes (or less bad, as you say). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Rectilinear has properties concerning the facing wall that are highly advantageous and expected by the human eye: that the proportions of features of that wall (esp the painting and arch) are correct. By applying a strong aspect-ratio adjustment to this image, we have now ensured the image is misleading. FP rules state "Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable". The main subject of this image is now significantly taller than originally shot. I also think it is unacceptable that such a major adjustment was made without pinging those who have voted already. -- Colin (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 20:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose Undescribed and unwarranted digital manipulation of the main subject. -- Colin (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would suggest that we discuss the question of aspect ratio changes separately, e.g. on the talk page, because it is a general question. It would be a pity if the discussion would spoil the nomination of this wonderful photo. Regarding this photo I would suggest just to return to the previous version in order to free it from the aspect ratio discussion; most of us have voted on the previous version anyway, so it seems the easiest solution to let run this nomination on that version. --Aristeas (talk) 10:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- My oppose would change to support if the altered version was reverted. Though it would not be permitted per COM:OVERWRITE to just switch it back again after promotion, even if a consensus agreed it was preferable. As Aristeas notes, most people voted on the unaltered version. I'm not sure this needs a general discussion, because this is the first time I've seen anyone apply such a distortion to an architectural nomination. So it doesn't seem to be a general issue, just an odd decision here. FYI the adjustment wasn't small, it was a +46 Aspect Ratio change in Lightroom. -- Colin (talk) 10:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Colin I've reduced the aspect ratio to 50%. This image is no stitched panorama, but a single frame. I applied the aspect ratio to compensate the perspective correction of 47 degrees as after the perspective correction things were also streched out. Is this version good enough for a compromise? Poco a poco (talk) 13:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Vertical perspective adjustment corrects for camera tilt and fixes the resulting distortion. It has zero effect at the centre (the central axis around where it appears to tilt the image). By applying a global aspect ratio adjustment, you have squashed the top, middle and bottom equally. It is just not a recognised architectural photography adjustment, and I don't think we should start doing it now. The stretching at the left and right borders that Alvesgaspar notices, are not "fixed" by also squishing the middle. The are just the consequence of your 16mm ultra-wide lens, which is significantly wider than a "standard". -- Colin (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sidenote: This is not not the first time that global aspect ratio changes for aesthetic reasons have been suggested or discussed on the FPC page; it has been done previously, and nobody complained when the result did look fine. --Aristeas (talk) 09:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 19:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am fine with either version, but I would suggest you ping everyone who voted before 13:08, 1 November 2021 to give them a chance to object to the most recent edition. On my own nominations, what I usually do is create an alt whenever I make a major change that could be controversial, and only overwrite the original when correcting obvious errors that anyone would agree to (or if it's early on in my nomination, I might overwrite with a controversial change and ping everyone who voted previously). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Michielverbeek, Ermell, Famberhorst, Llez, and Agnes Monkelbaan: @Radomianin, Axel Tschentscher, Cayambe, and Palauenc05: I'm pinging you just to let you know that I applied an aspect ratio correction of +23 degrees in Lr following the discussion above in the case you didn't realized it, and believe that this change is relevant for the vote you emitted so far. Thank you, Poco a poco (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the ping, Poco. In my opinion, the picture was fine before, now is also fine. At this point I would like to completely agree with the persuasive arguments of Aristeas. Thanks for this beautiful photo :) -- Radomianin (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Poco, my personal view is Support any version. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fine with me. --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The corrected version is better although it was not bad before. Thanks to Aristeas and for the ping.--Ermell (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also yes for FP --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fine with me. --Axel ^(talk) 19:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 05:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rooftop farm at the Essex (65787p).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2021 at 03:47:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Architectural_elements#Other
Info A rooftop farm on the Lower East Side of New York City, viewed from 20 floors up. I wanted to make it a panorama to be able to see the kinds of plants growing here (it would be great if someone who knows more than me could identify them :) ). It's run by a non-profit organization that trains and employs local youth and runs various farming-related programs. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 13:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice composition and perspective! --Domob (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charming combination of concrete and abstract. --Aristeas (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ahmad^talk 21:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I struggled over whether this would look better on a cloudy day or as it does now. I think a cloudy day would be a more standard approach to this subject which would also be FP-worthy, but the sunlight creates interesting shadow patterns even if some of the shadows are less than ideal (e.g. a little too large at the top left). I do like the rays of light created by the reflections. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 13:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --IamMM (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 11:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good nomination Cmao20 (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 05:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Elzenproppen (kegels zonder zaad). 15-01-2021. (actm.) 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2021 at 05:40:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Betulaceae
Info Alder props (cones without seed). Focus stack of 33 photos.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 11:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 13:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 13:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Große Kaskaden - Bergpark Wilhelmshöhe 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2021 at 11:11:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Other
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely. Kudos for seeing that motif. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The picture is not special in my view. The motif (wall) is very common and the greenery rather uninteresting. So is the reflection. I find the shadow at the left distracting. QI but no wow -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the motif, even though there is nothing paricularly spectacular. --Domob (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support At the first glance I wanted to say the same as Basile. However, after looking for a while at this picture, it did grow for me. I like the contrast between the fine structure of the conifers (and their reflection) and the more coarse structure of the stones, the harmonious running and retraction of the wall and its reflection, the slow growth of the stones on the wall from right to left, once again mirrored by the water. After all, it’s a meditative photo for me. --Aristeas (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special about it to be a FP -- Dey.sandip (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 19:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really think it would work better with that shadow cropped out. Daniel Case (talk) 04:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dey.sandip. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile.--Ermell (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Twins SE Asia 2019 (49171985716).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2021 at 15:17:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created by James Kerwin - uploaded by Renek78 - nominated by Danu Widjajanto -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gallery link fixed. There is no ‘Malaysia’ section on the ‘Cityscapes’ gallery page yet. If this photo gets promoted, I will create that section. --Aristeas (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support If this photo doesn't get promoted I would be sad. - Benh (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks awesome, except that there's some purple (on the right) and green (on the left) CA on the edges of some buildings, and that needs to be removed before the photo is promoted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi Benh, agree with you! But only after the ccw tilt is corrected... Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support @Renek78, Danu Widjajanto, Aristeas, Benh, Ikan Kekek, and Alvesgaspar: Seeing that the Flickr user has withdrawn the CC license at the source, it doesn't seem they would be amenable to making a new version from the raw, so I've taken the liberty to upload an edit of the image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you! I still see CA when I look at full size on my 23.5-inch monitor, but it's almost invisible on my 13-inch monitor, so I would support, but what is the copyleft status of Flickr photos when the photographer has withdrawn the CC license? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter, as CC licenses are irrevocable. I added an advisory tag to the file description. I intentionally left some CA in there, as correcting it fully would lead to overcorrection in other areas; ultimately, perfect correction requires applying a lens profile on the raw which we don't have. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support now. Thank you very much, King of Hearts, for taking care of this photo! --Aristeas (talk) 08:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas -- Radomianin (talk) 11:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 13:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Milseburg (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 15:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 22:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful sky -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish we could suppress the CA more, but I understand King's reasoning. Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Upper Canada College.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2021 at 21:48:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Canada
Info I was caught by this picture when it was nominated in QIC. Without the dramatic sky, it would only be a very good photograph. With it, looks magic. Created by Maksim Sokolov (Maxergon) - uploaded by Maksim Sokolov (Maxergon) - nominated by Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – the picture looks good to me. --Hulged (talk) 03:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose -- I'm sorry, but I fail to see what would make this a featured picture. MartinD (talk) 11:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Alvesgaspar. The sky is truly awesome in this picture (in combination with the building). --Domob (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Alvesgaspar. --Aristeas (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Also per Alvesgaspar --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 22:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very striking photo. Cmao20 (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The clouds are very effective here. Technically still leaning in a little if you check the sides, but the center spire looks natural to my eyes and that's what matters. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Apologies, but I agree with Martin D. I am not able to differentiate what special this image offers over the many of similar nature that have already gone into FPs (many of those should not have actually) -- Dey.sandip (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dey.sandip. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reason for featuring would clearly be the sky, but to me it seems either oversaturated or like some filter has been applied. Looks like I'm in the minority on that end, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, having taken an FP of a building with a similar background. Daniel Case (talk) 03:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I find that sharpening halo along the tower/roof way too prominent. Also agree with Rhododendrites: I can't put my finger on what exactly it is, but editing has been pushed too far somewhere, it does not look natural/credible to me. --El Grafo (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Everest-3D-Map-Type-EN.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2021 at 19:57:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mount Everest 3D Map by Tom Patterson, with English annotation

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps#Maps of Asia
Info created by Tom Patterson, uploaded by Cmglee, nominated by Yann (talk)
Support High quality and very detailed. -- Yann (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent and valuable work! -- Radomianin (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support as uploader. FYI, it is already a Featured picture on English Wikipedia. A language-agnostic version is at File:Everest-3D-Map-No-Type.jpg. cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 22:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Yann and Cmglee: Just for your information: AFAIK there is a bug in our FP bot. When a picture which is already a FP on some Wikipedia(s) becomes promoted to FP on Commons, the bot fails to add the necessary parameter to the {{Assessments}} template, so the description page of the picture will still look as if it was not featured on Commons. Therefore, if this picture gets promoted here, please go to the description page, search for the {{Assessments}} template and add the parameter featured=1. This means: Right now, the template reads {{Assessments|enwiki=1|enwiki-nom=Mount Everest 3D map}}, after promotion on Commons it should read {{Assessments|featured=1|enwiki=1|enwiki-nom=Mount Everest 3D map}}. Thank you very much for your help! --Aristeas (talk) 09:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. --Aristeas (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 09:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Maps#Maps of Asia

File:Paris quadrifolia flower - Keila.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2021 at 17:23:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Melanthiaceae
Info All by Ivar (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 08:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful, the flower looks like a dancer. – Some minor areas of the background are a bit distracting; I have added two image notes, maybe you want to improve these areas further. --Aristeas (talk) 08:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aristeas: Done --Ivar (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I delete my image notes again because both issues have gone. --Aristeas (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas (for the improved version) -- Radomianin (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition somehow feels incomplete to me, with the sense that the bottom portion is cut when you look at from an overall perspective -- Dey.sandip (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support One of those images that is much more impressive at full size than in thumbnail. In the thumb, I definitely see Dey.sandip's point. Cmao20 (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Impressive, but I have to agree with Dey. The bottom crop really bugs me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Red Kerchief, by Claude Monet, Cleveland Museum of Art, 1958.39.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2021 at 13:02:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Others#Interiors
Info created by Claude Monet / Cleveland Museum of Art, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk)
Support 169 Mpx resolution by the museum, high quality reproduction of a notable painting. -- Yann (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 15:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support This isn't one of my favorite Monet paintings, if I can judge that from looking at a reproduction, but the high resolution is really valuable, among other reasons, because it enables us to see how he used simplification, for example in painting the woman's face. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 08:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Winter in der Rhön.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2021 at 14:45:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Bavaria
Info Winter in the Rhön Mountains in the near of Himmeldunkberg looking southward to the Kreuzberg. All by me. --Milseburg (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 15:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A wonderfull winter scene. In Germany, this is quite rare nowadays. --Aristeas (talk) 08:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. I like the warm lighting mood, it provides a great interaction with the landscape. -- Radomianin (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 13:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Hulged (talk) 11:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:An air-cushioned landing craft transports Marine Corps equipment.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2021 at 22:11:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport#Other
Info created by Gwyneth Vandevender - uploaded & nominated by ToprakM --ToprakM ^✉ 22:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ToprakM ^✉ 22:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 22:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Domob (talk) 05:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has wow, but I'm not OK with the pixelated sky in the background and might oppose if necessary. Could that sky be smoothed out, please? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And please correct the horizon, it is sloping (or cut it off) --Llez (talk) 08:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unbalanced; 30 MPx on 1,3 MB. File compresion was huge, made much mistakes - banding. Its tilted too, crop could be beter - more to botom, without sky. --Mile (talk) 09:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- As Mile, poor image quality. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Posterization and more quality issues. Please upload the uncompressed image. --XRay 💬 10:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Terrible quality with blocky JPG artefacts. This was just 812 KB originally (the 1.3MB version seems to be a user adjustment to make it darker for some reason). -- Colin (talk) 10:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per others above. --Yann (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality issues per others, plus tilted horizon – no sorry. Crop should be a bit wider to shift the boat out of center – centered compositions always look static. --Kreuz schnabel 12:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Impressive shot but ruined by the aggressive JPEG compression. Cmao20 (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, It is time to withdraw this nomination. There have been no new support !votes in three days, and the opposes now so outnumber the supports that it is extremely unlikely at this point that the image will be promoted Daniel Case (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)--->[reply]

@Daniel Case: concerning the template {{FPX}}, the guidelines state "The template can only be used when there are no support votes other than the one from the nominator". And here there are 4 supports. -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]

OK, fine. Daniel Case (talk) 03:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 09:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mackenzie River Outflow.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2021 at 05:09:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images#North America
Info Mackenzie River delta on the Beaufort Sea during the summer. created by NASA - uploaded by StellarHalo - nominated by StellarHalo -- StellarHalo (talk) 05:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- StellarHalo (talk) 05:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fascinating structures and colors. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin. --Aristeas (talk) 08:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- No doubt this is a striking image but we should know what kind of image it is. That is, how were these false colours determined? According to the surface speed of the water? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Compare File:Mackenzie river enters Beaufort sea.jpg. There does seem to be something odd about the water. I see from this that the image sensor can detect all sorts of wavelengths, giving someone an opportunity to create a realistic or fantasy image. -- Colin (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that is most probably the case (I'm referring to the links provided by Colin)! This kind of images are created using multispectral sensors capable of detecting small variations in the water properties, for example, sediment content. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While the meaning of the image remains unexplained. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ahmad^talk 21:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 09:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Old Sugar factory (Cukrarna, Ljubljana).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2021 at 13:51:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Industry
Info Old Sugar factory dating to 1828-34 (Cukrarna, Ljubljana) after restoration. Fisheye shot, my work. -- Mile (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support My favorite of the current FPCs. The light, sharp lines, contrasting right angles of the building with round sun... I think it works really well. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Rhododendrites -- Radomianin (talk) 07:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 10:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice perspective but its not too uncommon and the white sun at the top is distracting -- Dey.sandip (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely abstract. Cmao20 (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definite album-cover type image. Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sun reflections add to image. --cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 22:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Info Second version, similar shot, a bit different weather, position (sky, sun) and HHHR (Handheld Hi-Res) with the fisheye. --Mile (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support both, passed few days which to nominee; both have some pros and cons, the composition is different. So Alternative is a good option for this nominee. -- Mile (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The main nomination is far superior to this one IMO. Here the sky is less attractive and the composition feels unbalanced. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Much less interesting composition than the other one, the leading lines are less effective. Cmao20 (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Original has more dramatic perspective. --cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 22:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Vulp prefers the main nomination.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 09:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Old Sugar factory (Cukrarna, Ljubljana).jpg

File:Worker with gas cylinders - Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2021 at 07:18:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Statues outdoors
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 07:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is the copyright ok? The template says "works which are permanently located" but this looks very much like it will only survive a short time. Is it a temporary exhibition? -- Colin (talk) 11:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Works which are permanently located" also comprises works which age in the course of time. This one is established permanently as a kind of signboard in the court of a company which sells gas bottles and the photo was taken from the adjacent public street. --Llez (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I can’t see anything outstanding here in terms of composition, no wow at all, just a straightforward shot of an artwork. Quality is meh, at 100 percent there are oversharpened edges and numerous JPG artifacts. Harsh contrast. Can you re-process this less aggressively from raw file? Then, I am not sure this is the most favourable angle of view, I’d like to see more of his face. --Kreuz schnabel 13:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuzschnabel, sorry; I think it is fine for QI and a good illustration of the artwork but the motif really lacks interest for me, I don't see it as an important or worthwhile artwork Cmao20 (talk) 08:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Llez (talk) 07:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frauenstein Dornhof Felder und Baumgruppe mit Magdalensberg dahinter 14122016 4663.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2021 at 15:00:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria#Carinthia
Info I find the multilayered composition of this landscape really compelling, and overall it seems like a sensitive and elegant photograph. created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Cmao20's nomination reasoning. -- Radomianin (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe cropping a bit on the left will improve the composition, by making the trees a more effective counterweight to the church at the top right. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A very nice picture, but the asymetrical foreground spoils the composition for me. It would work nicely if the border between the two layers were horizontal. As is, maybe it should be cropped. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly think all the changes suggested so far would make the photo more boring, but we shall see how the consensus goes. Cmao20 (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johann Jaritz: Given the disagreement, I think it is best that any revisions be presented as an alt rather than overwriting the original. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very beautiful and elegant, as already described by Cmao in the nomination. I would second King of Hearts’ idea to crop a (little!) bit on the left. – @Johann Jaritz: I have marked some dust spots in the sky and would suggest to remove them to make this excellent photo even better. --Aristeas (talk) 10:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While the foreground is interesting, the actual anchor i.e. the tree (per my guess) is rather ugly and ordinary looking. For a landscape, the composition does not provide enough depth either -- Dey.sandip (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dey.sandip. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. I can see what the idea might have been here, but it just doesn't get over the bar. Daniel Case (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dey, sorry. The focus should be on the trees instead of the foreground crop. Nice idea but the nail didn’t really get hit. --Kreuz schnabel 13:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Co mmon ists 23:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, i.e. Daniel C. above. Yann (talk) 12:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 06:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jong musje op een zonnebloem.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2021 at 20:16:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Passeridae_(Old_world_sparrows)
Info created by Ingredia - uploaded by Ingredia - nominated by Ciell -- Ciell (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ciell (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting blurry foreground, and very small resolution -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. --Cayambe (talk) 08:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but per Basile, the big blurry leaf adds nothing to the photo, and the resolution is not high enough for such a common bird Cmao20 (talk) 08:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Peulle (talk) 08:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 06:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Selva Sella Saslonch Lech de Ciampac.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2021 at 16:14:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy
Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Last photo (statue/portrait) was used with f/7.1, while on pano here you used f/6.8; should not be opposite ?! I dont see much FP here, probably wrong time on that spot, just QI. Some f/14 would be better. --Mile (talk) 10:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMO there is not much difference between f/6,8 and f/7,1 while it’s much esier to have a good DOF on a landscape then on a close statue, believe me. Cheers --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The flowers are out of focus. f/11 is easily handled by a 50 MP small medium-format sensor without much diffraction. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are basically shooting in f/4.8 in FF equivalent (crop factor of 0.78). That's why you can *easily* stop down to f/11. On top, you have color shifting on the right part of the panorama (it's greener on the right, or pinker on the left). - Benh (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Impressive level of detail but just too bright on the mountains, the snow entirely blown (plus some of the clouds). This is a marvellous spot to place your tripod but unfortunately wasn’t the best light for this shot. --Kreuz schnabel 12:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuzschnabel. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No blown parts that I see, but the image is really too bright. I tried reducing brightness a bit and the result was dramatic. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much shadows at the right part --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I find it a really pleasing scene to look at, despite specific technical issues mentioned above. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like this, the contrast between the bright left-hand side and the shadowy right-hand side is really effective. Good quality and compelling panorama. Cmao20 (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moral support Like Rhododendrites, I think this is a really pleasing scene. Most of the mentioned problems should be fixable. If the brightness was reduced (and contrast increased) on the bright parts, i.e. mostly on the left, and if the white balance on the left (too magenta esp. in the sky) was made more like on the right side to get a more uniform look, this would be a wonderful panorama. --Aristeas (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. -- -donald- (talk) 11:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support I wish it wasn't quite so hazy, but ... it's late June and that may just be something you can't change. The landscape is otherwise just so splendidly photographed that I'd not be averse to putting a backpack and walking into it ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No go for me as long as it's pink on the left and green on the right. - Benh (talk) 09:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You’re right – the sky and clouds show two entirely different tones in the left and right halves. I hadn’t noticed that so far, just had a feeling of something being wrong here. --Kreuz schnabel 13:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Co mmon ists 23:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The sky being of two different tones is a no-go for me. Poor choice of aperture is another issue, though not as major. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 06:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Berlin - Kirche am Hohenzollernplatz - Innenansicht 9329.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2021 at 14:31:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Germany
Info created and uploaded by T meltzer - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A wonderful photo. The expressionistic scene could also be a set right out of Fritz Lang's Metropolis. Thanks for the nomination! -- Radomianin (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Could you please provide some information about this place? Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alvesgaspar: Sorry I forgot that. Done by W.carter. --IamMM (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info I would like to take the liberty of mentioning a few historical key points on this page as well: It is an expressionist building, designed by the Polish-Jewish architect Ossip Klarwein. The church was inaugurated shortly after the Nazis seized power. It was completely burnt out during the Second World War. Klarwein fled to Palestine in 1934. The church was completely restored in the early 1990s and is listed as a historical monument. -- Radomianin (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Radomianin: That’s very interesting! It would be great if you could add that information to the description page of the photo (here on the nomination page it is hard to find). --Aristeas (talk) 08:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your positive feedback, @Aristeas: I have worded the information a bit better and placed it on the file description page below the summary. It would be a big pity if this photo would be deleted, maybe there is some legal room to keep it on Commons. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice photo. Unfortunately, there is no Freedom of Panorama in Germany for interiors... --A.Savin 18:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@A.Savin: Unfortunately I don't have much knowledge about the rules of panorama freedom in countries, should I stop this nomination now? --IamMM (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mohammad. It's up to you I think -- but of course someone may come and nominate this image (and other for this church' interior) for deletion even if it's already featured. In this case, the image can be undeleted in 2041. Regards --A.Savin 19:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what exactly to do in this situation but if the deletion of photos is definite and there is no way to keep them, it's better not to waste users time here anymore. --IamMM (talk) 01:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful and unique, but I fear my vote is in vain. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --IamMM (talk) 01:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just for the record: This was one of my favourite photos in Wiki Loves Monuments 2020 Germany where I was part of the jury. But we had to leave aside this photo from the competition due to the legal problems. It’s a pity … --Aristeas (talk) 08:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bacchus by Caravaggio 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2021 at 20:24:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/People#Paintings
Info created by Commonists - uploaded by Commonists - nominated by Commonists -- Co mmon ists 20:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Co mmon ists 20:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice picture --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure. Cmao20 (talk) 08:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Detailed quality and a valuable contribution. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Peulle (talk) 08:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 11:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Info Demoted/delisted to not featured per this and that discussion. --A.Savin 18:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Danube Delta ESA23450088.jpeg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2021 at 05:13:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images#Europe
Info Danube Delta. created by European Space Agency - uploaded by OptimusPrimeBot - nominated by StellarHalo -- StellarHalo (talk) 05:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- StellarHalo (talk) 05:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 18:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's amazing that this is true-color, and I think it's valuable enough to be not just a VI (which it should be nominated for) but also a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 08:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan -- Radomianin (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 11:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the way that one channel just visibly keeps going a km or two into the open ocean. Daniel Case (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bermuda - entrance to Hamilton Yacht Harbour and the Royal Bermuda Yacht Club - panoramio.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2021 at 21:25:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Comment File is too small in my opinion.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I don't see anything special about this image. It looks like a normal quality image that anybody could take with a decent camera, not one of the very best images among the millions on Commons.--Peulle (talk) 07:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, but I've never seen a nomination without an identified nominator. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: numerous shortcomings including overexposure, tilt, small size, arbitrary framing/composition, and poor quality, besides of gallery, author, uploader and nominator not being mentioned as stated in the guidelines. --Kreuz schnabel 18:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Erithacus rubecula[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2021 at 08:54:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Muscicapidae (Old World Flycatchers)
Info created and uploaded by Ssprmannheim - nominated by -- IamMM (talk) 08:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 08:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a lovely series! But is it really a set in the spirit of our rules? --El Grafo (talk) 10:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El Grafo: I'm not sure, please see here.--IamMM (talk) 10:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not sure, too, but IMHO that just shows we have made the “set” idea far too complicated during the last discussions ;–). At least image 2 to 4 were taken in a short time at the same place, so it seems reasonable that they show the same bird. Therefore the 2nd and 3rd type of set nominations according to our rules can apply here. --Aristeas (talk) 10:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lovely pictures in thumbsize but disappointing when opened, owing to the effect of noise on detail. I don't see the point in nominating a set of images. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose noise. No opinion on the set issue. Buidhe (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --IamMM (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

São Julião Church, Setúbal, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2021 at 08:19:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Nave
Ceiling

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Portugal
Info St.Julian's Church, in Portuguese "Igreja de São Julião", located on the centric Praça de Bocage (town hall quare), Setúbal, Portugal. The church was originally built in the second half of the 13th century in medieval style and was rebuilt at the beginning of the 16th century by order of King Manuel I in Manueline style. In 1531 a strong earthquake struck Setúbal and the church was damaged; the building was considerably modified in Mannerist style and reinaugurated in 1570. The original church was almost completely destroyed by the Great Earthquake of 1755 and was greatly rebuilt and redecorated in the last third of the 18th century following the late Baroque style. From this stage date the general appearance of the façade, the inner wooden roof, the painted tiles, the main and lateral altarpieces and the main chapel. The nave of the church is divided in three aisles by arches built during the Mannerist repair works following the 1531 earthquake. The columns are decorated in talha dourada (a typical Portuguese technique to decorate woodwork with gold leaves). Today it is the main church (matriz) of the city classified as National Monument in 1910. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 08:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support My first intention was to nominate to FP the ceiling candidate, but then I looked into the others and came to the conclusion that at the end of the day I'd also like to nominate them here, so I wonder whether it will work as a set nominating all of them at once. -- Poco a poco (talk) 08:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the entire set. The restrained lighting of the interiors gives the scenes an unobtrusive atmosphere with a focus on the essentials. Great shots! -- Radomianin (talk) 12:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Radomianin, sorry for pinging you again, this time the purpose is to let you know that I reduced the set to 2 images --Poco a poco (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, Poco. It is a pity that the set was reduced. But if it meets the guidelines, so be it. I keep my support for the remaining photos. Imho, the removed images (Main altar and Detail of azulejos) should be nominated individually because they are FP worthy. Kind regards :) -- Radomianin (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose set. The nave would get a weak support -- there's a lot of grey stone and pews and the interior has less wow than many of our other examples. The altar also weak support. This view merely adds a 2x detail to the previous one, though the camera is closer too. The ceiling I'd oppose due to lack of wow. We have plenty "wow" ceilings and this one is plain and merely competently photographed. The detail I'd also oppose as being just a QI. Also there are many such tiled images around the church and this is only one of them, which doesn't fit well with a set nomination. I think we need to be careful set noms aren't just a random collection of some aspects of a building photographed by one photographer. The point of a set is completeness, not just a quick way to get four or five FPs from one building. -- Colin (talk) 13:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good quality images, but per Colin. Imho this collection doesn't work as a whole --Ivar (talk) 14:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question For a set, the guidelines state "Not acceptable: A selection of different rooms in a skyscraper, the facade of a church plus an organ." Thus I wonder what the "Detail of azulejos" is doing here. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Basile Morin, I took that picture along with the main alter image out of the set, --Poco a poco (talk) 09:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still think this is just two random photos you took inside the building. Would be better to nominate the nave on its own, and be happy with QI for the rest. And again, major changes are being made to a nom and the previous support voters not being informed. -- Colin (talk) 10:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It that statement applies in this case, it also does in probably 80% of all sets nominated here Poco a poco (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I was going to review this set in full but sadly the image that's by far the best - the altar - is not here anymore. I think all four photos are FP, although the altar is the only one I would really jump at nominating (I may do so), but I am not sure it's a cohesive set. Cmao20 (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, funny, my favourite is indeed the ceiling...Poco a poco (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the ceiling is probably FP but I wonder why it is your favourite. To me it seems like the least interesting of the four. It is well captured of course but fairly plain, the light is quite nice but it isn't the most architecturally interesting. I would actually rank both of the images you have taken out of the set, higher than the two you have left in. Anyway, will start the altar nomination because it should definitely be FP. Cmao20 (talk) 08:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cmao20 I'd say that I like it for these reasons: it's different; I like the paintings on it; it's a valuable old wooden ceiling (most I know are made of stone) and I enjoy the arches framing it and the paintings you can see through them. Poco a poco (talk) 11:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Colin ... I agree that these would work better as individual noms at this point. Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poco a poco (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poco a poco (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eiffel Tower with rainbow in Paris.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2021 at 18:43:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#France
Info created by Marc Baronnet - uploaded by Marc Baronnet - nominated by Baronnet -- Baronnet (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Please do not confuse "featured pictures" (for which >2M pixels is sufficient : see guidelines) with "quality images" (for which technical perfection is demanded). Sharpness is useful, but there is no other pic of the Eiffel Tower under a rainbow in Commons yet, to my knowledge, hence the nomination. Baronnet (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image is not sharp enough. Also, it would have been better as a horizontal image, to show more of the rainbow. A 14mm or wider lens is recommended if you want to show a full double rainbow. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty scene. --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not as rare as author pretends. I have heaps of these on my phone and of similar quality and I don't even dare uploading them here. Good to show to friends on dinners though. - Benh (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Benh, I am pretty sure that which such comments, you "friends on dinners" don't know you on "Commons"...;)--Jebulon (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty moment but not a great photo, in my opinion. Featured pictures are supposed to be among the greatest on the site, not just unique on Commons for showing a double rainbow and the Eiffel Tower in the same shot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for two reasons : 1) perspective problem (verticals should be corrected) and 2) quality issue at full resolution (artifacts, unsharp) -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the others. It is a nice view for sure, but the quality is certainly not up to FP today. --Domob (talk) 13:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality and unfortunate framing. I expect rainbow photographs to show the entire arc unless they’re very unique, which this isn’t. --Kreuz schnabel 14:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Definitely a pretty moment that was worth recording but not FP in terms of quality or composition, a bit too much of a snapshot. Also uncorrected perspective distortion very obvious especially on the right hand side. Cmao20 (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Time to withdraw this nomination No new supports in three days and there's no way this is going to make up the difference the way things are going. Daniel Case (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: Sure, it's not going to pass, but it is up to the nominator to withdrawn or not. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know; it's meant as a suggestion to the nominator. Daniel Case (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Great blue heron in GWC (16570).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2021 at 15:05:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes#Genus_:_Ardea
Info Great blue heron perched on a small tree. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 18:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 09:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Always amazing what an ornithological paradise New York is. Good capture! -- Radomianin (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Great blue herons are definitely a favorite here. People are often shocked they exist in this region at all (as opposed to some tropical location), nevermind in the city. They can stand almost 1.5m tall, with a 2m wingspan, and a huge bill they use for snatching and stabbing prey. For that reason they're many people's "spark bird" -- the bird that gets someone more interesting in birding. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interesting explanations. In our area we are at least happy when we again can observe the flocks of cranes on their west European migration route. Greetings :) -- Radomianin (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 11:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Axel ^(talk) 16:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Moscow MSU Zoological Museum asv2021-07 img11.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2021 at 14:42:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Russia
Info Interior of the Zoological Museum of Moscow University (building completed in 1902), showing the Hall of Comparative Anatomy, and at the right is an Asian Elephant's skeleton. -All by me --A.Savin 14:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 14:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support for a solid photo of a museum exhibit. I think the quality level is about what one could hope for while retaining pleasant light and detail, and while I don't love the prominent staircase, it otherwise captures the room pretty well — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice photo, the dinosaur paintings at the top are a bit noisy but otherwise excellent. Cmao20 (talk) 08:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support according to Rhododendrites' reasoning. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support The overall atmosphere is very impressive, though quality is not optimal (some aliasing and noise in various places). Also, the windows have RGB values in the 230s; I think it would make better use of the full dynamic range if they were in the 250s (i.e. just short of pure white). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Rhododendrites. Daniel Case (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --C messier (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:GWR Class 43 HST Dawlish.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2021 at 08:07:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info created & uploaded by David Gubler – nominated by Ivar (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, rather unusual to see a Kabelleger UK shot. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Excellent, as everything by Kabelleger. MartinD (talk) 13:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- A nice composition but colours look oversaturated to me. Easily to fix, I suppose. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Saturation looks fine to me Cmao20 (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Iglesia de San Julián, Setúbal, Portugal, 2021-09-08, DD 07-09 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2021 at 08:10:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Portugal
Info St Julian's Church, Portugal - per my discussion in the set nomination that doesn't seem to be going anywhere, I think this is the best of the four pictures originally presented. I really like the light above the altar, and te beautiful artwork. created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 08:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 08:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you Cmao20 for helping me out here :) Poco a poco (talk) 08:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support because I supported it in the above mentioned set. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 09:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 19:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 11:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Beautiful baroque church and very well done. I wonder how the blown highlights coming from the upper windows were avoided! Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Alvesgaspar, thank for your feedback. This image is the result of 3 frames using HDR, which I always state in the filename. Poco a poco (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Goblet of Fire Cocktail.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2021 at 15:39:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food_and_drink#Drinks
Info created by Sumitsurai - uploaded by Sumitsurai - nominated by Sumitsurai -- Sumit Surai (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sumit Surai (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Very beautiful, though noise is rather high for a 4 MP image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 13:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kritzolina (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per King of Hearts -- Radomianin (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Interesting but too small and noisy -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per King of Hearts. --Aristeas (talk) 08:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very interesting. With a closer look sharpness and noise reduction could be better. --XRay 💬 13:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This time I'll be a fly in the ointment – not very good quality with quite low resolution, though I like the composition. --Ivar (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per koh — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 05:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- As Ivar, poor image quality for a small picture. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per King of Hearts. Cmao20 (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I wish this was more in focus but still ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rumah adat Sumba (Uma Bbatangu).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2021 at 15:22:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Indonesia
Info created by RaiyaniM - uploaded by RaiyaniM - nominated by Danu Widjajanto -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shadowed areas are somewhat noisy at larger sizes and a bit more room above the one house would be welcome, but this is a nice photo, interesting to people like me who haven't been to Sumba and aren't familiar with the traditional shape of houses there, and shows one house at very high resolution. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me not enough space keft in top, you might add some sky. --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop too tight at the top, agree with Michielverbeek -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting motif but the top crop is very tight and the composition is in my view a little clumsy Cmao20 (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Crop isn't a dealbreaker. Noise is. Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iglesia del convento de Jesús, Setúbal, Portugal, 2021-09-10, DD 01-03 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2021 at 22:28:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Portugal
Info Main nave of the church of the Monastery of Jesus, Setúbal, Portugal. The monastery, founded in 1490, is one of the oldest buildings in Manueline style (Portuguese version of Gothic) and served as a monastery of Poor Clare nuns. Note: the high altar of this church is already FP. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obviously excellent. Cmao20 (talk) 22:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. I like it. -- Radomianin (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know this is an old building, but I'm not sure the verticals are vertical. On the RHS window, the verticals lean out towards the top. The tiles on the RHS are hard to see but they lean in towards the top. Those on the LHS are easier to see and their vertical lines lean in towards the top by quite a large degree. You can also use the ornate golden repeated pattern on the tiles, which should be vertical on its centre-of-symmetry. There's also a tile pattern straight ahead, though it is possible that wall has a curve to it. The EXIF suggests a -21 vertical perspective correction and +1.3 perspective rotation has been applied. I wonder if that needs revisiting. -- Colin (talk) 08:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, I checked the lines again. The image is not tilted and I don't think I needs any horizontal perspective correction, so we are talking here about a vertical perspective correction. The window on the top right is leaning a bit out, I could reduce the perspective correction from 21 to e.g. 18 degrees, but then those golde ornate patterns will need more correction in the other direction, since to get those straight I'd need something like 26 degrees, if I go further the columns at the borders look overcorrected. So, I could go up to 26 but then the window at the top will lean more outwards. I indeed think that the age of the buildings does play a role here (look for example at the tiles behind the altar, they are all but horizontal, specially on the right). Unfortunately I haven't found any usable other images on Commons or on the Internet to compare with and I can surely get everything straight but only with local adjustments what I never do for a "standard" perspective correction. Poco a poco (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you upload-and-revert a version with no vertical perspective correction and no perspective rotation or any other such changes. I could have a play with it to see what can be done. I agree, it is possible the building is just wonky. Perhaps best to ensure the camera is absolutely level to begin with. -- Colin (talk) 08:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here you are, Colin Poco a poco (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded a version I think is better, and reverted. I didn't apply any rotation or vertical perspective. I just used the guided transform. I applied two vertical guides and one horizontal. You can see the guides on the second image I uploaded. The left guide clearly goes through the centre of the symmetrical pattern, which also happens to be a tile edge. On the right side, there is a symmetrical pattern at the top and bottom, which also follows a tile edge, though that's harder to see. The horizontal is the bottom row of the central tiles. Fixing those tiles also fixed the tiles further away. What was reassuring about this is that if you draw a line down the X's at the very centre of the back wall (from the top of the arch behind the cross down to the lower rectangle of tiles near the ground) it goes through them all perfectly. That tells me that adjusting those two side walls and the horizontal also corrected the rotation at the very centre of the church. The red door on the right is better. The window on the right is likely not true in real life. -- Colin (talk) 18:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the new version. I didn't have today the chance to compare your version with a version with a tilt + a perspective correction of something like 30, I assume that the different will not be much. In your version, apart from the issue with the window I also think that the colums at both sides ar leaning out, it doesn't look aesthetic to me and I don't think that the colums are tilted for real. I will look and compare the versions tomorrow, latest on Saturday. Thank you! --Poco a poco (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Colin: I've played around with different settings, also the guided transformation in Lr and would like to keep your version, assuming though that both the window top right and the columns are not straight but slightly leaning out. As the nom is through I see no point in pinging everybody but as the changes are slight IMHO I think that choosing that version would be ok. Poco a poco (talk) 14:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad we found a way to improve those sloping walls. Does you camera have a level in the viewfinder? If it were me, I'd ping the others out of courtesy and per COM:OVERWRITE. Your own hesitancy over the change shows to me that it isn't an obvious improvement but balances competing issues that some might object to. Btw, I didn't pay a lot of attention when exporting my version, so it might not have the EXIF you normally set for your own work. -- Colin (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Colin: Sure, I've a level and I usually use it. When I got into the church I was alone (I was really lucky) but right behind me there were more people coming in and doing the temperature test in the moment I took the picture. Long story short, I had to hurry up...--Poco a poco (talk) 13:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmao20, Radomianin, Famberhorst, IamMM, and Alvesgaspar: @Aristeas, Agnes Monkelbaan, Llez, and Daniel Case: I'm pinging you to let you know that following the discussion during the nom I finally took over Colin's version prioritizing the verticality of the tiles/door versus window on top left and columns. If any of you disagrees with this version I'll revert to the version that was active during the nom. Thank you. --Poco a poco (talk) 13:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pinging, @Poco a poco: Regarding me, I agree with the new version. Many regards :) -- Radomianin (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. (If you can come up with an even better perspective correction, that is always welcome, of course ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 10:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 11:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good picture of a unique monument. Not easy to have those Solomonic columns in the foreground also on focus, I suppose. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Three_ships_-_panoramio.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2021 at 21:25:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Comment File is too small in my opinion.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: resolution is less than 2 megapixels. --Ivar (talk) 06:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Вид на Беш-Кош с Чуфут-Кале.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2021 at 21:44:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Crimea
Info: View of Beş Qoş from Çufut Qale; all by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now at least. Really good motif but it looks way oversharpened to me, lots of sharpening haloes and the texture of the detail doesn't look right at all. Cmao20 (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao. Hopelessly overprocessed. --Kreuz schnabel 16:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. And inconsistently overprocessed to boot ... there are extremely unsharp areas immediately adjacent to the oversharpening. Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ponte Vecchio IMG 7979.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2021 at 17:24:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Italy
Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Fischer.H (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aerial view of karst area in Kostivere, Estonia (spring 2021).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2021 at 06:48:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Estonia#Harju County
Info created by Sillerkiil - uploaded by Sillerkiil - nominated by Sillerkiil -- Sillerkiil (talk) 06:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sillerkiil (talk) 06:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not so large and really poor quality unfortunately -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks quite nice as a thumbnail, but I'm afraid it doesn't have the level of detail expected from one of the best images among the millions on Commons in 2021. --Peulle (talk) 08:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gallery link changed. The gallery page for natural places in Estonia has sections for the counties, so the section anchor should point to one of them; I assume this photo was taken in Harju County, so I changed the anchor to that. --Aristeas (talk) 09:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mainly for lack of sharpness. --Cayambe (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Surely a nice view but poor quality. --Kreuz schnabel 21:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Egg of Pelopidas agna (Moore, 1866) - Bengal Obscure Branded Swift.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2021 at 06:25:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Hesperiidae (Skippers)
Info created by Sarpitabose - uploaded by Sarpitabose - nominated by Bodhisattwa -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 06:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 06:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sure this could be a VI and a QI but there is no wow. Just a simple photo of an egg on a leaf. -- Colin (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good attempt but reluctantly Oppose per Colin. --GRDN711 (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, again a good QI though Cmao20 (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eggs of Melanitis leda (Linnaeus, 1758) – Common Evening Brown.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2021 at 06:00:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)
Info created by Sarpitabose - uploaded by Sarpitabose - nominated by Bodhisattwa -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 06:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 06:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why is the picture credited "Kalyan Mukherjee", while the author (and uploader) is Sarpitabose on the page? -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment sorry, unintentional mistake from my side. Corrected. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sure this could be a VI and a QI but there is no wow. Just a simple photo of eggs on a leaf. -- Colin (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This might have had a chance if it were cropped in a lot tighter on the eggs. Daniel Case (talk) 04:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin and Daniel, interesting QI but not well composed or impressive enough to be FP sadly Cmao20 (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Faramarz Khan Caravanserai DJI 0564-HDR-03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2021 at 11:27:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Iran
Info created by Hadidehghanpour - uploaded by Hadidehghanpour - nominated by 4nn1l2 -- 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment File should be renamed. Yann (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overcontrasted and oversaturated, poor overall quality, low resolution. --Kreuz schnabel 16:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gallery link refined by adding the appropriate section. --Aristeas (talk) 10:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment great idea, execution could be better. Buidhe (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuzschnabel. --Fischer.H (talk) 08:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iris sibirica, zaadboxen. 28-08-2021. (d.j.b) 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2021 at 05:32:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family : Iridaceae
Info Closed seed boxes of a Iris sibirica. Focus stack of 18 photos.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 19:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reliable as usual: Good work :) -- Radomianin (talk) 07:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin. --Aristeas (talk) 10:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

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

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

File:Khosrowgerd Tower DJI 0051-HDR-04 resize.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2021 at 11:19:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Iran
Info created by Hadidehghanpour - uploaded by Hadidehghanpour - nominated by 4nn1l2 -- 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment File should be renamed. Yann (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Grainy, less than 4.6 megapixels and still lacking detail in full view, harsh contrasts, leaning verticals, mediocre overall quality. --Kreuz schnabel 16:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuz. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gallery link refined by adding the appropriate section. --Aristeas (talk) 10:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuzschnabel. --Fischer.H (talk) 09:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A shame because it is a beautiful photo with lots of wow, but the quality/resolution are not FP. Cmao20 (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lühikarvaline taks otsevaates.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2021 at 07:06:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family_:_Canidae_(Canids)
Info created by Sillerkiil - uploaded by Sillerkiil - nominated by Sillerkiil -- Sillerkiil (talk) 07:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sillerkiil (talk) 07:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurry. Nothing is sharp -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough sharpness, the light is not particularly brilliant and there is no special wow factor. I would also say that for an FP image, I'd expect a the image page (descriptions etc.) to contain more information.--Peulle (talk) 08:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Funny idea but really way too soft. Composition is a bit arbitrary, too. Would have been better to avoid the whitish thing on the left, and let the background lights "frame" the dog somehow. --Kreuz schnabel 10:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Not an outstanding photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sort of image that might get an honorable mention in some photo contests but not this one. Daniel Case (talk) 04:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Earth 300 vessel design.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2021 at 11:09:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Computer-generated#Engineering
Info created by Iddes Yachts for the Earth 300 organization - uploaded by MartinPoulter - nominated by MartinPoulter -- MartinPoulter (talk) 11:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MartinPoulter (talk) 11:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great concept study. I am looking forward to the first pictures after the planned ship launch. (Pity that it is cropped tightly on the left side) -- Radomianin (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support An extraordinary yacht --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 20:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ermell (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wait, so what is this? A [partially?] CG model Photoshopped onto a real photo? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, there's no link to the source. But looking at the other versions on Google, the colors here seem manipulated (background gray and boat + sea pink). -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No need for such a tight crop in an illustration. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if this were a photo of a real ship in this setting, I would support. But it's a promotional mock-up. There are rare cases when I would support such a nomination, e.g. a model of a planned city, with strong historical value. But not an advertisement for a yacht. Perhaps if it's notable it's a FP on enwiki. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Rhododendrites. Yann (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I might support if the background could be identified. Otherwise, I may oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 06:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop at the left is too tight, the photomontage unbalanced and artificial (I would have preferred either a full 3D-model or better a real photo), and this luxury yacht not my taste -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Rhododendrites. Cmao20 (talk) 08:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Agree with Rhododendrites. MartinD (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Rhododendrites. I have nothing against private concerns uploading free images of cool new projects they've got going. But that doesn't make their rendering an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 12:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Female mosquito head.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2021 at 07:04:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info all by Fedaro fedaro (talk) 07:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- fedaro (talk) 07:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Impressive shot in any case, but unfortunately the photo has been over-processed, imho. There are also numerous dust spots or render artifacts in many places of the image. Sorry. -- Radomianin (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Rado – poor quality. --Kreuz schnabel 14:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --Cayambe (talk) 08:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Cmao20 (talk) 08:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Marinna (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Rado. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 12:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:House sparrows in CP (60060).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2021 at 23:16:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Passeridae_(Old_world_sparrows)
Info A male and female house sparrow on a thorny branch. Very common birds, but I liked that they caught the late afternoon sunlight amid dark background, and having the male/female together, looking in opposite directions. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty scene in high quality. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed good light etc. --Aristeas (talk) 10:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 13:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing light and shadow. --Augustgeyler (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oh, yes! (a pity that the background is so busy) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 11:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks better in full-res. Daniel Case (talk) 02:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Close wing Mud puddle of Delias agostina (Hewitson, 1852) – Yellow Jezebel (Male) WLB IMG 2640.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2021 at 19:47:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Pieridae (Whites and Sulphurs)
Info created by Sandipoutsider - uploaded by Sandipoutsider - nominated by Bodhisattwa -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 20:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Composition is ok and this is a beautiful butterfly, but poor image quality is revealed in the head and eyes, where noise affects the detail. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Good photo, and the quality is just about acceptable for FP to me. Cmao20 (talk) 08:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 09:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support as above. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 11:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 02:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Close wing position mud-puddling and peeing activity of Papilio slateri (Hewitson,1859) – Blue-striped Mime (Male).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2021 at 19:58:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Papilionidae (Swallowtails)
Info created by Atanu Bose Photography - uploaded by Atanu Bose Photography - nominated by Bodhisattwa -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 05:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regretfull oppose A remarkable picture in thumbnail, but the head and eyes are out of focus. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An image of a butterfly urinating is unusual, so regardless of the outcome of this nomination, consider a COM:VIC nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan Kekek, not perfect but has some interesting features that elevate it to FP Cmao20 (talk) 08:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 09:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Ikan and Cmao20 -- Radomianin (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 11:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 02:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Papilionidae (Swallowtails)

File:Dimorphotecaecklonis-Tandil.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2021 at 19:06:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

White Dimorphotheca ecklonis, Cape Margarite

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info all by me Ezarateesteban 19:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 19:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are some very good images of this species in our galleries, and this one does not excel. White petals are overexposed, which affects the detail. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar. Nice, but overexposure on petals kills any flower pic. --Kreuz schnabel 18:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice pic but the flower is quite small in the frame and the petals are overexposed. Cmao20 (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 02:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rumah Kaki Seribu (Mod Aki Aksa).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2021 at 13:38:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Indonesia
Info created by RaiyaniM - uploaded by RaiyaniM - nominated by Danu Widjajanto -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A special capture for me. Pretty. -- Radomianin (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! @RaiyaniM: There is a big dust spot in the sky (see image note on this page). Could you please remove it to improve your great photo further? --Aristeas (talk) 08:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aristeas I tried to remove the dust spot using Adobe Photoshop, I hope it works. Danu Widjajanto (talk) 18:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Danu Widjajanto: Thank you very much! --Aristeas (talk) 07:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support No nails, only lianas -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support For the spot-on front view. Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 02:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Zygaena filipendulae, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2021 at 19:55:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Side view
Top view

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Zygaenidae_(Burnet_Moths)
Info all by Ivar (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A definite wow set! -- Radomianin (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Probably bigger than they need to be. Is there some CA on the right antenna of the top view photo, or is that just light? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek: minor correction done. --Ivar (talk) 05:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wow (again)! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 10:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. Nice light -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 02:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Afghanistan, Gandhara, Hadda, late Kushan Period - Seated Buddha - 1967.39 - Cleveland Museum of Art.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2021 at 21:25:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Statues indoors
Info created by the Cleveland Museum of Art, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk)
Info Seated Buddha from Hadda, Gandhara style, late Kushan period (around 300 CE), today in Afghanistan. The site of Hadda, now destroyed, had numerous Buddhist stupas. Each was decorated with images of Buddha in niches around the square bases. This Buddha is typical of the seated type, with both feet covered by the robe and hands held gently in the meditation gesture, resting on his lap.
Support This statue is in very good condition, high resolution and quality reproduction. -- Yann (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Valuable contribution, professional capture. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann. The light control is excellent. --Peulle (talk) 07:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. Great reproduction! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. --Aristeas (talk) 08:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I respectfully think that Buddha himself would have preferred a more centered composition... Harmony...--Jebulon (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Radomianin, Peulle, Ikan Kekek, Aristeas, Agnes Monkelbaan, Poco a poco, and Jebulon: I centered the statue, as suggested by Jebulon above. I hope it's OK. Yann (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, thank you Poco a poco (talk) 07:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK for me. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I think it's better this way. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --C messier (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 10:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support ॐ -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for centering. We want more of works of Art, even if better when photographs are taken by Commoners !--Jebulon (talk) 11:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Co mmon ists 11:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cmao20 (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 05:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Sculptures#Statues indoors

File:Rumah adat Nuwo Sesat lampung.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2021 at 18:16:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Indonesia
Info created by RaiyaniM - uploaded by RaiyaniM - nominated by Danu Widjajanto -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Firstly, it needs perspective correction, but the crop is so tight to the left, that parts of the roof would have to be cropped out if the perspective is corrected. The top crop is also tight. The roof to the right is quite distracting and the cable also doesn't help. --C messier (talk) 23:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting building but distracting roof at the right -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Danu Widjajanto (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iglesia de San Sebastián, Setúbal, Portugal, 2021-09-10, DD 28-30 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2021 at 17:53:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings/Ceilings#Portugal
Info Ceiling of the parish Church of Saint Sebastian (in Portuguese «Igreja Paroquial de São Sebastião»), Setúbal, Portugal. The original church of São Sebastião was a small hermitage, built around 1490 on the site of the current viewpoint of the city of Setúbal. The current parish church of São Sebastião, located in the Dominican convent, was founded between 1564 and 1566, in a work sponsored by D. Sebastião. The design of the temple is attributed to Afonso Álvares, royal architect who built the churches of São Roque, in Lisbon, and Espírito Santo, in Évora. The work of the church of São Sebastião de Setúbal stands out for the military design of its structure, certainly derived from the training of Afonso Álvares as a military engineer. The interior, with a single nave, has interconnecting side chapels, and was originally covered by a barrel vault, destroyed in the earthquake and replaced by a wooden roof. Although it is not a Jesuit temple, its design fits into an architectural typology disclosed by the Society of Jesus in the second half of the 16th century, resulting in a building of large proportions, with a large and bright interior space, preceded by an imposing and austere façade. Although it has undergone some structural changes, the church of São Sebastião can be defined as "a remarkable building in the evolution of Portuguese architecture in the second half of the 16th century" and is listed as National Portuguese Monument (Idem, p.50). c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Sorry, but this would be the third active nomination. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alvesgaspar This is my second nom, the rule doesn't apply to the authorship of the images as long as a nominator only has 2 active noms at the same time. This rule has never changed. Poco a poco (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, got it. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 20:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed a very interesting ceiling; wooden church roofs with such lavish paintings are rather rare. --Aristeas (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Poco a poco: Because the photo shows mostly the ceiling, I have taken the liberty to change the gallery link to the special gallery page for ceilings of religious buildings. I hope this is OK ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support In agreement with Aristeas' reasoning. Detailed and well captured. -- Radomianin (talk) 10:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now this is what an FP ceiling looks like. Cmao20 (talk) 12:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --C messier (talk) 14:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 10:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fraser valley viewed from Sumas Mountain.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2021 at 03:39:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#British Columbia
Info: Fraser valley viewed from Sumas Mountain; all by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Beautiful thumbnail but hazy and too noisy, IMO, at full size. Can you do anything about the noise/artifacts? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done: denoised. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks. The sky is better, though there are still darker dots in it, but I don't think the rest of it is FP-level with the remaining artifacts, and I consider panoramas to be fairly judged by looking at full size at this kind of scale. I'm afraid I'll have to oppose unless there's a way to redevelop the photo and get rid of the rough-looking artifacts. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done: applied different algorithms, I think that took care of the artifacts. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, very big improvement. I'm going to live with this photo a little bit and see if I can come to a decision. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support At thumbnail it looks too hazy for FP, but viewing it in full size I think it's a really interesting panorama. Good composition and quality. Cmao20 (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WB is too blue/green. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done: made warmer. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Por image quality: postereized, no detail, seems overprocessed. Alvesgaspar (talk) 03:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At 100 percent view, there’s considerable loss of detail, the woods in the background are completely posterized. Colour banding in the sky, look overprocessed. On the other hand, we are pixelpeeping on a frame of 32 megapixels so it might be usable for printing despite of the shortcomings. --Kreuz schnabel 16:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too strong chromatic noise in the mountains, in my opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Generally overprocessed, per others. Didn't even get to the mountains before reaching that conclusion. Daniel Case (talk) 03:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 08:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cuban emerald (Chlorostilbon ricordii ricordii) male cr.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2021 at 12:20:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Trochilidae (Hummingbirds)
Info This is a renomination, but the re-edit from RAW Charles did on this picture in March 2020 have improved it hugely to the extent that the criticisms raised in the previous nomination no longer seem valid, with the sharpness problems solved. No FPs of this beautiful species so far. created by Charlesjsharp - uploaded by Charlesjsharp - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 12:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 12:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Axel ^(talk) 16:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support thanks for the nom. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful photo of a beautiful bird. --Aristeas (talk) 08:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great detail Poco a poco (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 03:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family : Trochilidae (Hummingbirds)

File:Príncipe malachite kingfisher (Corythornis cristatus nais).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2021 at 17:24:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Alcedinidae (Kingfishers)
Info Endemic to the tiny island of Príncipe. Size is about 12cm. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Congrats to your new camera. I just bought the same lens… switiching to RF as well :-) --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem, Frank, is that the camera will not autofocus on, say, a dragonfly on a stick, or a spider on a web. Have to switch to manual focus. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I won't be able to test mine yet, as the camera body will only arrive in a couple of weeks. Are you happy with the image quality? It looks like the colors and the contrast are excellent. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 12:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very happy with everything else. Noise at higher ISOs so much better than my EOS 80D. Eye-tracking of birds in flight works well against a clear sky. I've got the RF 100-500 lens though it can accommodate EF lenses. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Lovely, and congrats on the new camera. Just curious what factored into your decision to choose one with relatively low pixel density, as a wildlife photographer? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The R6 is the Canon alternative and has many more pixels, but less good low light performance. And the R6 was too expensive. Test results online show that the results are very similar. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ermell (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 10:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 11:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing picture. Cmao20 (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I find both kingfisher images quite similar and the another one of much better quality Poco a poco (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You must expect them to be similar, but they are different subspecies. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family : Alcedinidae (Kingfishers)

File:Πηγές Ερκύνας, Λιβαδειά 1639.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2021 at 12:43:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Greece
Info All by C messier --C messier (talk) 12:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The springs of river Erkyna in Livadeia, Greece. Support -- C messier (talk) 12:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A very pretty waterfall and well-chosen shutter speed, but the composition is less than ideal. The bottom third doesn't serve any purpose. (Also, a bit of noise is visible on the waterfall.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The terrasse ruins the mood of the natural scenery, and the right part is distracting -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Divje Babe flute (Late Pleistocene flute).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2021 at 11:13:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
Info Divje Babe flute, probably oldest known musical instrument. National Museum of Slovenia expo. My shot. --Mile (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support As a flutist, how could I not vote for this? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ikan Kekek Did you read Paleolithic flutes, what would you say, is that from Germany older ? --Mile (talk) 10:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not knowledgeable enough about archaeological procedures to have an informed view about that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I know very well how museum shots are difficult. But this one has to many unsharp places. I am really sorry, because it is an excellent document.--Jebulon (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish there weren't that unsharp spot at the bottom, of course, but it is quite clean for an object behind glass in a museum. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jebulon Poco a poco (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:São Tomé malachite kingfisher (Corythornis cristatus thomensis).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2021 at 12:41:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Alcedinidae (Kingfishers)
Info The two main islands of São Tomé and Príncipe are about 140 km (87 miles) apart, yet each has an endemic subspecies of the malachite kingfisher. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this one even better. Gret shot! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per F. Schulenburg -- Radomianin (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent again. Cmao20 (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The bird stands out wonderfully against the soft background. --Aristeas (talk) 10:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 10:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm a sucker for a good kingfisher. I'm amazed how many kingfisher FPs we get because the only species we have where I live (belted kingfisher/Megaceryle alcyon) are extremely skittish, flying away and chattering when people get anywhere near them. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both photos were taken from the back seat of a car, with the driver moving back and forward to optimise bokeh. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family : Alcedinidae (Kingfishers)

File:אגם פארק הירקון.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2021 at 09:04:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Settlements#Israel
Info created by Giladtop - uploaded by Giladtop - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 09:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 09:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a very nice scene and idea, but I am not overwhelmed by the result. Technically, it’s oversharpened and oversaturated, at rather poor resolution. In terms of composition, I would have chosen a viewpoint more to the right to make the palm trees stand out from a bright part of the water surface. Then, it’s out of balance, the left third is entirely empty of anything interesting. --Kreuz schnabel 09:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The image quality is borderline but I really enjoy the composition and mood. Cmao20 (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overprocessed Yes, it's a lovely scene. But oversharpening is evident on the cranes, and the clouds have noticeable posterization. Daniel Case (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schloss Langenburg-msu-2021-0306-.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2021 at 17:56:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Germany
Info created & uploaded by Matthias Süßen - nominated by Ivar (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture! -- Radomianin (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Really beautiful, though a portion of the facade is blown out. You may also wish to consider cropping out the building on the left; it'll give you a more concise composition. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really good candidate. Cmao20 (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very striking. Great light, nice clouds of mist -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Very nice mood. But can it be legal in Germany to launch a drone in such a high altitude? Just to be clear, it's not a relevant question for Commons policies, but the fact is also, in case of non-allowed photography there might be legal risk for the photographer who publishes these pictures. @ Matthias Süßen: I hope you know what you are doing. Regards --A.Savin 02:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think 501.6 m is the elevation above sea level, not the height above ground. The photo looks like it was taken from no more than 100 m high. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's ok. Langenburg is situated at an altitude of 439 meters above sea level. I launched the drone at the forecourt of the castle and was never higher than 120 meters above the ground. I also asked the owner of the castle for permission. —Matthias Süßen (talk) 06:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks. --A.Savin 13:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile. BTW, congratulations, Matthias, on winning WLM 2021 DE: you have contributed so many excellent photos, it’s perfect that you got the first price! --Aristeas (talk) 10:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much.WLM and WLE are a constant source of inspiration for me. The other submissions are great as well. I am already looking forward to 2022. --Matthias Süßen (talk) 08:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hulged (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gorgeous point of view and conditions - Benh (talk) 09:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Señor Aluminio (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simply gorgeous! --El Grafo (talk) 14:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 28 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Yosemite Falls from trail, Yosemite NP, CA, US - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2021 at 17:19:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States#California
Info A stormy and atmospheric landscape showing Yosemite Falls. There are FPs of the national park, but none of the waterfall itself so far. created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hulged (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is there perspective distortion? Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive. --Aristeas (talk) 10:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The dust spot in the sky left to the water fall should be removed. --Cayambe (talk) 11:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 07:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Male northern pintail in flight-8276.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2021 at 03:06:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes#Genus_:_Anas
A difficult shot. Pintails fly at fast speeds and it took me a year to get an image like this. (c/u/n) all by me. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. --Aristeas (talk) 10:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 11:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful and impressive photo. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support worth the wait. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 23:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support At least during this year you've learnt to set the right exposure time :-) Basile Morin (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 07:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 12:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent capture.--Peulle (talk) 11:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks almost like an airline logo. Daniel Case (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Duckhansa"! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Milseburg (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 08:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Anseriformes#Genus_:_Anas

File:Baumsilhouetten am Uetliberg mit Novembernebel und Sonnenstrahlen.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2021 at 11:24:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland#Zürich
Info Tree silhouettes at the Uetliberg (Zurich, Switzerland) with November fog and sunrays. Created and uploaded by Kuhnmi, nominated by --Aristeas (talk) 11:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Such “trees in the fog with sunrays” scenes are nothing new, but I consider this one as particularly beautiful. The colours, the tree silhouettes and the light make it very atmospheric and charming. I wish November days were always so enjoyable ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 11:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I had come across this last year while sorting "Clouds in ..." images down to "Clouds and blue sky in ...". I left a tab with it open with the intent of nominating it for QI, something I haven't done much of lately. It got it, and my next goal was to nominate it here.
It's always a delightful surprise to learn you weren't alone in this assessment.
What I also like about it is its country of origin: Switzerland, which despite so much beautiful scenery isn't the first country you'd imagine this one coming from. Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas and Daniel. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Really striking and good quality -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 06:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was sure it was XRAY 😂 --Co mmon ists 12:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --A.Savin 12:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hulged (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 03:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. Cmao20 (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 28 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eleanor of Toledo with her son Giovanni de' Medici by Agnolo Bronzino.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2021 at 11:24:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/People#Paintings
Info created,uploaded and nominated by Commonists -- Co mmon ists 11:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Co mmon ists 11:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose High ISO artifacts, especially visible on the face. A reproduction of a painting really needs to be close to perfect to become FP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. Daniel Case (talk) 16:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gryphaea arcuata 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2021 at 05:26:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Shells#Family : Gryphaeidae
Info "Devil's Toenail " is the common name for this Jurassic oyster; created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 05:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great, as always. --Yann (talk) 10:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann. --Aristeas (talk) 10:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 11:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann. Cmao20 (talk) 23:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 12:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ofiura lisa (Ophioderma longicauda), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-31, DD 50.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2021 at 08:52:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class_:_Ophiuroidea
Info Smooth brittle-star (Ophioderma longicauda), Arrábida National Park, Portugal. It's a species of brittle stars, echinoderms, closely related to starfish. Like most brittle stars, this species are formed from a central disc around which radiate 5 elongated and tapered arms. The rigid, pentagonal central disc measures 3 cm in diameter on average with the mouth in the lower side. The arms are vigorous, round in section and relatively long, reaching up to 15 cm. Along the arms, on either side, are rows of scales that have taken the form of quills, folded down along the arms. Note: there is only this FP of this class of animals but where the brittle stars plays a secondary role. Poco a poco (talk) 08:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 08:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 11:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good focus on the animal itself. Cmao20 (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 14:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Señor Aluminio (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rocks at Cape Sounion, Greece.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2021 at 16:31:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Greece
Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jebulon (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose The rock is disturbingly close to the top edge IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @King of Hearts: Do you need more of sea above ? --Jebulon (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, a bit more at the top would be good, as well as on the right. I don't know where the horizon is, so I'll trust your judgment on whether or not to include it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you. I understand. There is no "horizon" but other parts of coasts from this specific point of view, just distracting. I will not change my composition, which I find highly valuable by itself. I could add more water above by invisible cloning, and even at right, but what I find interesting is the rock by itself, the structure of the stones, the sharpness, and the contrast with the color of the sea. Thanks for comments anyway.--Jebulon (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality, but just some rocks and the sea. In brief, no wow. Yann (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SupportAt first I agreed with Yann but looking at this for a while it has grown on me, I like the colours and light. Cmao20 (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I guess this is one for the philhellenes among us ;–). Yes, it looks like “just rocks” at the first glance, but what rocks these are: very typical for a Greek coast, rough and bleak, but full of history, as celebrated e.g. in Giorgos Seferis’ cycle Μυθιστόρημα. And the sea has the typical violet shade mentioned so often by Homer. --Aristeas (talk) 11:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Yann Poco a poco (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann. Nice technically though ... definitely should be a QI. Daniel Case (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely already a QI…--Jebulon (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schwetzingen 009.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2021 at 16:19:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Germany
Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 06:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tweaked the gallery link. Our gallery links are rather stupid, they can only link to an existing section on an existing gallery page ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Co mmon ists 12:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --IamMM (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support just a little off center.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Señor Aluminio (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although going forward I think it could be improved by cropping in the sides a bit more. Daniel Case (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Albergue de Castilla, La Valeta, isla de Malta, Malta, 2021-08-25, DD 234-236 PAN.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2021 at 07:21:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors
Info Auberge de Castille, Valletta, Malta Island, Malta. The auberge houses the Office of the Prime Minister of Malta and sits at the highest point of Valletta and overlooks Floriana and the Grand Harbour area. Built in the Baroque style under the magistracy of Manuel Pinto da Fonseca in the 1740s, it replaced a 1574 building erected to house knights of the Order of Saint John from the langue of Castile, León and Portugal. The name Castille (or Kastilja in Maltese) is often used as a metonym to refer to the Prime Minister and his office, as the White House is used to refer to the Executive Office of the President of the United States. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The offset fountain and non levelled framing are deal breaker. - Benh (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 20:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Superb size and quality but I agree with Benh, the lack of centred framing is just too disconcerting. Was something preventing you from getting dead-centre? In any case the picture is an excellent QI but it doesn't have the harmonious and satisfying composition of an FP Cmao20 (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the picture would be better if taken from in front of the purple thing, more like File:Auberge de Castille (02).jpg. As it is, the fountain is distracting me from the facade. Buidhe (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Symmetrical buildings should not be depicted slightly off-center. Either have it perfectly centered, or have it totally off to the side. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thank you for your feedback. I take it back. Poco a poco (talk) 10:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poco a poco (talk) 10:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brackenheim - Stockheim - Schloss Stocksberg - Ansicht von Süden im Herbst (1).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2021 at 07:58:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Germany
Info created & uploaded by Aristeas - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 07:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 07:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Harmonious interplay of the different color shades; the tree line to the vineyard hillside serves as a dynamic leading line; high technical quality. In short: Lovely photo! -- Radomianin (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you very much, Tomer T, for the nomination and all of you for your support! – For the curious I can add some hints: Stocksberg Castle (at Stockheim, a district of Brackenheim, Germany) was first mentioned in documents as early as 1220. From 1307, the castle belonged to the Teutonic Order. In 1525, it was destroyed by rebellious peasants and the inhabitants of Stockheim during the German Peasants’ War. It was rebuilt in 1574, giving it its present form. The Bergfried (tower) is about 30 metres high and in reality also leans significantly to the left. The vineyards in front of the castle are known for their good wine and have formed a protected landscape area since 1938. --Aristeas (talk) 10:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lovely! MartinD (talk) 10:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support After I learned that the leaning tower is for real :) Poco a poco (talk) 11:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 11:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support spectacular! --Ivar (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 12:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support --A.Savin 12:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Danu Widjajanto (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ooooh nice lines, textures, colors. Best thing at FPC right now IMO. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition as a whole and in some ways, even better when looking closely at the light, colors and textures at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 01:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - --GRDN711 (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Schdogge... -- -donald- (talk) 11:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Lovely colors, nice light, pleasant composition, excellent quality -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 14:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support as I said when Aristeas asked my advice on this photo, it's an excellent candidate and glad so many agree Cmao20 (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb! --Mosbatho (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 33 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hortus Haren 18-10-2021. (actm.) 05.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2021 at 05:39:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family : Clavariaceae (Coral Fungus)
Info Hortus Haren. Ramaria formosa salmon coral Focus stack of 15 photos.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 11:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support though I added a couple of notes with minor issues on the nomination page. --Ivar (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. As soon as I see the notes, I will recover them.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Small correction. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Co mmon ists 12:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support --A.Savin 12:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not sure what we're looking at that's causing dark spots in the bokeh, but I'm sure it's natural and this photo deserves the star for the beautiful mushrooms that are photographed in such clear detail. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The group of fungi grew between decayed and fallen branches. The tree leaf on the left was also there. and we included it in the composition.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wasn't talking about the leaf. On the log in the background, there are spots of different colors, and also behind that log. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation: in the background are natural materials and it was very dark under the trees.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice with an excellent composition. Congratulations.--Jebulon (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent as usual Cmao20 (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Can something be done about that weird ringing and posterization on the fungi? Daniel Case (talk) 03:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: probably due to the translation, I don't quite understand what you mean.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi#Family : Clavariaceae (Coral Fungus)

File:India, Chandragupta II, Gupta Period - Coin with Figure of an Archer - 1977.62 - Cleveland Museum of Art.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2021 at 21:12:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Money & Seals
Info created by the Cleveland Museum of Art, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk)
Info Gold coin of Chandragupta II with figure of an archer (obverse, left), and with figure of the Indian goddess of good fortune, Shri, seated on a lotus (reverse, right). India, late 4th-early 5th century, from the Cleveland Museum of Art.
Support Very high resolution and good quality reproduction of a rare coin. -- Yann (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Probably deserves the star, but I wish the DoF were slightly longer, to make the entire face of each side of the coin sharper. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: The size of the coin, and the resolution of the picture should be taken into account. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree, which is why I say it probably deserves the star, but if it had a slightly longer DoF, it would wow me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Quality not enough for a plain subject like this, partially due to front lighting. ~~The difference in size and background of the coins is also detrimental~~ . Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alvesgaspar: What do you mean by "The difference in size and background"? This is not front lighting. The light is clearly from the side above the coin. Please note that this is gold, and therefore shiny. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that the coins were the same size, in which case they should be shown as such. If not, they should at least be aligned in the image. Concerning the grey background, maybe it should be made uniform across the two parts and the stitching line be somehow eliminated. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unifying the aligment is a good idea, if possible. Removing the stitching line seems a nice idea, too, but IMHO it would give the impression that these are two different coins lying side by side. Therefore, if this image shows both sides of one and the same coin, I would not remove the line. --Aristeas (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I suggest to leave a narrow white stripe between them. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alvesgaspar: OK, that's easy. Yann (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alvesgaspar, Aristeas, and Ikan Kekek: I scaled down the left image, and tried to blur the line. It can't be completely removed, unless removing completely the background. And yes, there are 2 sides of the same coin. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seems deserving to me because it's pretty big and sharp even at 30% of full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. -- Radomianin (talk) 05:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The narrow white space is a good solution. --Aristeas (talk) 07:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 10:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hulged (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Co mmon ists 11:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cmao20 (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Not totally sharp, yes, but you have to be looking really close for that. Daniel Case (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Money & Seals

File:Tailfin AA B787-9 (N836AA).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2021 at 21:21:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport#Airliners
Info Vertical stabilizer of a Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner in Dallas/Fort Worth. In my opinion, the photo becomes interesting by the baggage tug and its long evening shadow. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Radomianin (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the warm evening light and the colours. The contrast in size and colours between the tailfin and the baggage tug makes the picture exciting. Thanks to the composition I feel immediately drawn into the picture. --Aristeas (talk) 08:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition and good quality. But nothing here rings my FP bells, sorry. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar – nothing really wrong with it but not much wow either. Rather grainy look at full view, maybe too much sharpening applied. --Kreuz schnabel 16:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Concerning the composition, I don't like the bottom right corner, and apart from that crop, the picture does not blow me away as an FP -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's potential here for an FP of a commercial airliner's tailfin, but it's not this image. Daniel Case (talk) 04:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

La Lechuga, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2021 at 03:00:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

La Lechuga
La Lechuga from behind
Detail
Detail
Detail
Detail
Detail

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Jewellery
Info created by Banrep cultural (on Flickr) - uploaded by SajoR - nominated by XalD -- ·×ald·^es 03:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ·×ald·^es 03:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd be happy to consider nominations of individual photos, but the selection seems a bit arbitrary for a set nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very interesting photos, but I would second Ikan’s statement. Maybe seleting fewer images would give a convincing set; for example, the first two (front/back view) would alreay form be a simple and valid set. – Tweaked the gallery link to make it work. --Aristeas (talk) 09:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as a set per above. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@XalD: Just as a little help (maybe you are new to this page): Set nominations are very tricky, they are often declined due to our narrow definition of what makes up a set. So don’t get discouraged, this is more a set problem than a problem of the photos – the photos are indeed impressive! So I would suggest to reduce this nomination. Just keep only the first two photos, the front and back view; AFAIK they form a valid set nomination; remove the other photos for now. I would support that reduced set nomination. Later, when this nomination is over, you could try to nominate some of the details as individual nominations; there is at last a chance that this works. Just want to help, --Aristeas (talk) 08:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Should I create a new nomination, or just second the removal of the other pics? --·×ald·^es 03:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@XalD: To avoid any confusion, it would the the savest solution to cancel this nomination and to create a new one. --Aristeas (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain Agree with idea to either renominate as a smaller set or as individual images. Daniel Case (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rotkehlchen im Landschaftsschutzgebiet "Unterer Neckar, Zwischen Heidelberg und Ladenburg" 04.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2021 at 17:23:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Muscicapidae (Old World Flycatchers)
Info created and uploaded by Ssprmannheim - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info At the suggestion of Aristeas and Rhododendrites, I nominate this image again as the best photo of this unsuccessful nomination: Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Erithacus rubecula. --IamMM (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very atmospheric and authentic photo of this little beauty. It is a tiny little bit grainy, but that’s just natural photon noise; personally I always prefer a little bit of grain over a mushy image, which is often the result of exagerrated noise removal. -- Aristeas (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A picture that works on many levels for me - this is like a visualization of what I want winter to be like --Kritzolina (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for the nomination of my picture :) This is also my favorite from the set --Ssprmannheim (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 20:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would make a nice Christmas card -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas and Basile. -- Radomianin (talk) 05:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 10:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 11:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose needs some feet Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really sorry to do this but for a very common bird I tend to agree with Charles' point. Good photo and I am sure it will pass but I think an FP shot of a robin could be a bit better in terms of composition and also noise levels. Cmao20 (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing! --Co mmon ists 11:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support El Grafo (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Muscicapidae (Old World Flycatchers)

File:Bendi di Jam Gadang.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2021 at 22:49:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Indonesia
Info created by Dody.bukittinggi - uploaded by Dody.bukittinggi - nominated by Danu Widjajanto -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image looks overprocessed; also, the shadows could be lifted. Try the contrast slider first. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Grainy image (looks almost like a scanned print), harsh light, and a very busy and somewhat random-feeling composition. Daniel Case (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the editing on the sky, the clouds look really impressive (ignoring the graininess for a moment). But everything else has been compressed to the low- and midtones with no real highlights left. That makes it look way too dark for a sunny day. This is difficult to get "right" with global adjustments, might have to do sky and foreground separately. There's a bunch of other problems too, including clipping blacks and chromatic aberrations. --El Grafo (talk) 08:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice view but sadly too overprocessed for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 09:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hepatica nobilis flowers - blue and pink - Keila.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2021 at 06:03:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Ranunculaceae
Info all by Ivar (talk) 06:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Will definitely support once small stacking errors corrected. See notes. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charlesjsharp: Done --Ivar (talk) 11:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support thanks. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. -- -donald- (talk) 13:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely colors. --Yann (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Señor Aluminio (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful and great technical quality! -- Radomianin (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful pairing -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stepro (talk) 05:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like these tiny flowers very much and have never been able to see them as detailed as in your photo. The pairing is stunning. --Aristeas (talk) 08:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely composition and contrast of colours Cmao20 (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hulged (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support We should run this on the main page during Bisexual Awareness Week Daniel Case (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 06:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Michelangelo's David - right view 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2021 at 20:05:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures
Info created,uploaded , nominated by Commonists -- Co mmon ists 20:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Co mmon ists 20:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are artefacts that are likely the result of sharpening at a high amount and medium-high threshold. I would ease up on sharpening and NR. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Too much light correction. Yann (talk) 08:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment King of Hearts I reworked it, better? Thanks --Co mmon ists 14:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but now there's visible color noise. You can be a bit more aggressive there since the only risk of color noise correction is causing color desaturation, but this image doesn't really have much color to begin with. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK now? Thanks --Co mmon ists 20:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I Support now, too. Great work and a solid reproduction now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, better. Opposition withdrawn. Yann (talk) 08:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 07:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the improved version. -- Radomianin (talk) 12:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Support--The original David exhibited at the Accademia Gallery. I can't not support it. Stupendous. Thank you. 151.61.36.45 16:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)PROPOLI87151.61.36.45 16:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PROPOLI87 but you have to log in First,no voting from IP adresses. Thank you.--Co mmon ists 16:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support there are some light (dust?) spots on the background. --Ivar (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done Ivar thank you --Co mmon ists 17:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Sculptures

Info Demoted/delisted to not featured per this and that discussion. --A.Savin 18:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Romaine Lacaux, by Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Cleveland Museum of Art, 1942.1065.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2021 at 20:02:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/People#Paintings
Info created by Pierre-Auguste Renoir / Cleveland Museum of Art, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info This painting may be Renoir's earliest signed canvas. Its sensitive display of color and light communicates an ideal of delicate, youthful beauty. The luminous tones of the background drapery and of the child's white blouse result from the artist's careful observation of reflected light and color on translucent materials. The delicate nuances of color, particularly in the young girl's face, reveal Renoir's previous training as a decorator of porcelain. He painted this portrait, commissioned by the vacationing Lacaux family, during his stay at an artist's colony in the village of Barbizon, near Paris.
Support Very high resolution (159 Mpx) and quality. Beautiful painting from a famous painter. -- Yann (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 20:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support A great Renoir! I always find it fantastic to be able to study and admire the paintings thanks to the high resolution. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin. --Aristeas (talk) 09:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely Cmao20 (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 08:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Santuario di Santa Maria delle Grazie interno Brescia.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2021 at 15:32:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Italy
Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Señor Aluminio (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 20:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb work. Cmao20 (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hulged (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2021-09-16 Erfurt bei Nacht 1DX 3974 by Stepro.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2021 at 05:38:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Germany
Info Erfurt Cathedral Square with St. Marien Cathedral (left) and Severikirche (right) by night. Created, uploaded and nominated by Stepro.
Support -- Stepro (talk) 05:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now - lovely view but the highlight correction has gone too far. By trying to recover highlight detail that just isn't there, the highlights look unnaturally grey. Much better to leave the bright lights as bright lights! Cmao20 (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao20 Buidhe (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Right side is leaning in, wrong WB, overexposed areas/light management not good Poco a poco (talk) 10:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 05:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dimorphotecaeclonis1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2021 at 11:18:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dimorphotecaeclonis in Tandil, Argentina

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Subfamily : Asteroideae
Info all by me Ezarateesteban 11:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 11:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I won't oppose, but while I really like the flower, most of the photo doesn't really do anything for me, so I think there's too much background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I try to use rule of thirds here, I don't understand when apply it Ezarateesteban 12:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can crop it a bit, to i) reduce the amount of background; and ii) get rid of that partially in focus leaf on the right. I've added a possible crop as an image note. Regarding the Rule of Thirds, I would merely take it as a cue to experiment with different compositions, rather than a prescription with strict proportions. -- Julesvernex2 (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thirds are unimportant when like 7/8 of the composition has no interesting content. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Photography terms#Rule of thirds -- Colin (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As I said on QI, you have not divided into thirds. You can check out purpose of rule of thirds online e.g. Wikipedia. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don’t understand the composition with the main subject in one corner, filling the rest of the frame with uninteresting leaves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kreuzschnabel (talk • contribs)

I withdraw my nomination Ezarateesteban 11:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative, not featured[edit]

Comment Crop proposed per Julesvernex2 Ezarateesteban 16:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ezarate, personally I would crop it slightly more at the top (so that the flower is at an equal distance from the left and top borders), and less at the bottom (so there's a more balanced proportion of background to the right and to the bottom of the flower). -- Julesvernex2 (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See now, Julesvernex2 Ezarateesteban 17:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't see what makes this one of the best pics on Commons Buidhe (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This works for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support It works for me, too. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose crop Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question What's wrong with the crop? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer it centred. I can see no reason for the offset. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Works for me, too. --Aristeas (talk) 08:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but per Charles, there is no reason not to centre the flower. It is trying to be different for the sake of being different. The subject rewards a centred composition most of all. Cmao20 (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A nice picture, and a nice, sharp flower, but I don't get the composition. I don't mind when a subject is offset, but there should be a reason for it. If the reason is to show the stem/leaves, they largely get lost in the background, and the center of attention is too close to the corner either way. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination thanks to all Ezarateesteban 11:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lambertikirche IMG 0976.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2021 at 15:18:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Germany
Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Photo is nice, but lacking crispness and nothing really special. Please fix FP gallery. --A.Savin 16:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me and I cannot see the cages --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Have a closer look, the cages are on the right. --Kreuz schnabel 21:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC) You are right, but I would prefer a photo from that side --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Surely nice but too soft for such a simple static object (why f/11?), sharpening haloes visible, and nothing that special really. --Kreuz schnabel 21:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Fischer.H (talk) 10:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Giraffe Mantis (Euchomenella heteroptera) female (15040219774).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2021 at 09:29:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family : Mantidae (Mantids)
Info created by Bernard DUPONT - uploaded by User:Josve05a - nominated by AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 09:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nom -- AryKun (talk) 09:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice photo, but overprocessed (saturation). Choice of F stop has meant small depth of field and head not in focus. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really interesting subject, but I find the foreground distracting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pupil.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2021 at 20:43:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/People#Standing_people
Info A schoolgirl washing her hands during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ghana. This was one of the winners of the recent Wiki Loves Africa campaign, which focused on "health and wellness". I love the light, color, and theme of this lovely portrait. Also worth noting we only have 8 FPs from all of Ghana right now (7 of which are wildlife). It will, of course, need to be renamed after the nomination closes. created and uploaded by Amuzujoe - nominated by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support according to the persuasive nomination statement. Wonderful, natural capture. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 06:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ciell (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Great scene but the second cropped kid in the background is really distracting and unfortunately spoils the composition IMHO Poco a poco (talk) 11:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Sincerely of the discourse covid 19 does not interest me minimally, but the photo is very well done. And I agree quite a bit with Poco, but the photo deserves it.--Co mmon ists 12:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many CA's. --A.Savin 12:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, per Poco --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose few Ghana FPs is not a reason to make it FP. The cropped girl ruins this shot. I'm surprised so many are supporting; we've all seen many FPCs shot down for less.Seven Pandas (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Do I wish the second person in the background would have moved outside the frame? Sure! But I don't think that this breaks the image. It's still a great shot. --El Grafo (talk) 09:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose child in background. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose On consideration, I lean towards the opposers. The timing was just slightly unfortunate.--Peulle (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with the opposers, but this lovely smile of this kind girl you can never repeat. -- -donald- (talk) 11:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Clone the second girl out, and crop a bit above.--Jebulon (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per El Grafo and -donald- and with the wish, that this photo will not be manipulated by clone or something --Stepro (talk) 05:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I understand the oppose arguments but to me this is special enough to feature. Cmao20 (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The girls's face is a strong enough subject to pull attention away from the one in the background. Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kritzolina (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is one of the reasons I don't upload my own photos -- vast inconsistencies in what is and isn't successful. This photo has a major flaw and will succeed and others with only minor flaws get pounced on and go down in flames. Seven Pandas (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Seven Pandas: I think FPC is always a balancing act. For me, FPC is never about "this must reach X minimum wow factor and Y minimum technical quality"; you can trade off one for the other within reason. You can have a very standard reproduction of a well-known monument, but the absurdly high resolution is what makes it an FP. Or a stunning sunrise which is less than 4 MP. I myself have not yet decided whether the wow in this image is enough to compensate for the flaw. But the ones with minor flaws that you mention, probably had barely enough wow to eke by in the first place. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @King of Hearts: I have lost all (what little) respect I had for the FPC process. Seven Pandas (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Príncipe sunbird (Anabathmis hartlaubii) male.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2021 at 22:10:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Nectariniidae (Sunbirds and Spiderhunters)
Info The male of the previous nomination. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 11:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 07:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 06:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 08:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:August Macke - Three girls in yellow straw hats I - Google Art Project.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2021 at 11:54:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/People#Groups
Info created by August Macke - uploaded by DcoetzeeBot - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very detailed --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dunnock on a fence post.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2021 at 10:07:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Order_:_Passeriformes_(Passerines)
Info created & uploaded by Alexis Lours - nominated by Alexis Lours (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alexis Lours (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colors due to the autumn afternoon light, great image quality. -- Radomianin (talk) 10:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 12:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Currently imbalanced. Both the eye and the bulk of the body are to the left of center, while there is almost nothing on the right side. A good chunk of the right can be cropped. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Works as (or like) lead room, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but not that much. The one below shows a more appropriate amount of lead room. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aristeas (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Light -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hulged (talk) 06:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 06:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with KofH that tighter cropping would make this a stronger image. --GRDN711 (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mildly disagree about the need for any tighter cropping, I think it's fine to let it breathe. Cmao20 (talk) 08:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Order_:_Passeriformes_(Passerines)

File:Melithreptus lunatus.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2021 at 06:12:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Meliphagidae_(Honeyeaters)
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison – nominated by Ivar (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Ivar (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 10:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 06:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 08:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bonnet Macaque Eating Banana.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2021 at 18:01:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by Augustus Binu - uploaded by Augustus Binu - nominated by Mydreamsparrow -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice photo, but needs better categorization, and can we find out where the photo was taken? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek: Done -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for adding location information. Now, please work on categories. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for adding the categories. Charles has some good points in his critiques of the photograph (without considering the practice of feeding monkeys; the other stuff), so I'm doubtful about supporting the photo for FP, in the end. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I have never been convinced that humans feeding animals like this is a sound conservation practice, especially for a vulnerable species. It happens all over India with various macaque and langur species. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question But how that is effecting the quality of picture Charlesjsharp ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mydreamsparrow (talk • contribs) 03:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have specified that it is the composition, the behaviour and the technical quality that I oppose. Feeding wild animals is often against the law. This animal has been fed for some time, judging by the full cheek pouches. I prefer wildlife images to show natural rather than man-made settings. The cut-off green plant is distracting. The lighting is sub-optimal and could you have chosen a better day for these easy-to-take animals? - that would have given you higher shutter speed, lower ISO and higher F number. The eyes are in focus, but little else. The settings chosen have resulted in softness and lack of definition. Some of the banana is blown. The sky background is not ideal, a darker background can often be better. There is a strange imbalance between the trees on the right and left. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Nice composition but, without prejudice to the ethical question, I agree with some of Charles' points about technical flaws. Cmao20 (talk) 08:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Glencoe Lochan reflections 3 20211022.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2021 at 16:12:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United_Kingdom#Scotland
Info created by Domob - uploaded by Domob - nominated by Domob -- Domob (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really like the peaceful autumn mood in the picture, as well as the clear reflections in the loch. --Domob (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Domob (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful reflection --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely! This place makes me want to visit it. It transmits pure peace. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition and light -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hulged (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. --Aristeas (talk) 07:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not perfect, but what a view! --A.Savin 17:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 11:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very well done in terms of composition and lighting. Cmao20 (talk) 08:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely composition and colours. --Tagooty (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Grand shadow play at Wat Khanon Temple 003.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2021 at 14:42:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Traditions
Info created by Paul-shy - uploaded by Paul-shy - nominated by Danu Widjajanto -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 14:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 14:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting, very different from Javanese, Balinese or Malay Wayang Kulit. But could it possibly be de-noised a bit? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a striking image in my point of view. I don't find this picture special enough for FP. The human shadows are hardly discernible because the background interferes. The major problem is the tight crop at the bottom, almost cutting the feet out -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Very striking and plenty of wow factor although I wish the bottom crop were less tight and the noise level is a bit high. Cmao20 (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking! --MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking for me as well, I don't see the humans shadows as the main subject, they are part of the bigger compostion and that is one I love --Kritzolina (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Cmao. I actually like that the two people are mere shadows – this emphasizes that the important thing are the shadow puppets and the play. --Aristeas (talk) 10:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - the bottom crop isn't great, and a composition with the performers centered in front of the stage would be much better, but I keep coming back to it, and it is competently done within the limitations of the photographer's location. Maybe it's because I haven't seen a photo of this kind of performance before, but it seems worth a support. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Striking colors and silhouettes, but the horizontal lines in the lower background are too distracting for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Basile. --Yann (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile Morin. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:La Défense, business district of Paris, 7 September 2020.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2021 at 18:12:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#France
Info created by Pierre Blaché (Flickr) - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cluttered composition. Ugly buildings (left and right) and ugly beam in the foreground. The only interesting part maybe would have been the glass tunnel / footbridge, unfortunately hidden behind this unaesthetic structure. Technically, blown highlights and blue halos -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have seen the bright lights handled better in other night FPs but this is still OK for me Cmao20 (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically well subpar: unsharpness, distortion and CA. We've seen similarly long-exposed night cityscapes done much better. And even if it weren't, I'd have reservations with an otherwise interesting composition ruined by the bridge truss at right trying to poke me in the eye. Daniel Case (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Passeggiata sul fiume Arno in autunno - Vallina Bagno a Ripoli (Fi).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2021 at 16:45:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Italy
Info created by PROPOLI87 - uploaded by PROPOLI87 - nominated by [[User:{{subst:PROPOLI87}}|]] -- (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality, and I fail to see anything special here. --Kreuz schnabel 20:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the sense of looking through a window at this scene, and there are quiet elements in this image that appeal. Overall, it is QI without enough wow for FP. --GRDN711 (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mainly because of the image quality. I like the idea of looking through the railings at a beautiful natural scene, although I wish the railings were more scenic and seemed a bit more in keeping with the surroundings than these; also the photo is seemingly not straight. Cmao20 (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, interesting idea but I don't see anything here that wows me. Daniel Case (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pulpo común (Octopus vulgaris), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-21, DD 33.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2021 at 20:21:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class_:_Cephalopoda
Info Common octopus (Octopus vulgaris), Arrábida Natural Park, Portugal. This mollusc is the most studied of all octopus species. It is cosmopolitan, that is, a global species, which ranges from the eastern Atlantic, extends from the Mediterranean Sea and the southern coast of England, to the southern coast of South Africa. The common octopus hunts at dusk. Crabs, crayfish, and bivalve molluscs (two-shelled, such as cockles) are preferred, although the octopus eats almost anything it can catch. It is able to change color to blend in with its surroundings, and is able to jump upon any unwary prey that strays across its path. Using its beak, it is able to break into the shells of shelled molluscs. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 06:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 20:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. Cmao20 (talk) 08:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --C messier (talk) 08:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 11:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sargo común (Diplodus sargus), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-21, DD 56.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2021 at 20:27:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Order_:_Perciformes_(Perch-like_Fishes)
Info Sargo or White seabream (Diplodus sargus), Arrábida National Park, Portugal. This species of seabream is native to the eastern Atlantic and western Indian Oceans. It is found from the Bay of Biscay southwards to South Africa, including Madeira and the Canary Islands, the Mediterranean and (rarely) the Black Sea. An active fish, they inhabit the surf zone, but they may be found down to 50 m. They consume small crustaceans, molluscs and some seaweed and coral, using their strong jaws to crush shells. Individuals can reach 45 centimetres (18 in) but average 22 centimetres (8.7 in). Diplodus sargus is commercially fished and are protandrous hermaphrodites, with individuals starting out life as males, and some becoming female later on. Note: we have no FP of this family, genus or species. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very sharp and well composed for an underwater photo Cmao20 (talk) 08:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 08:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 11:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Strommast Energie.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2021 at 00:56:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Germany
Info created and uploaded by Elbacho - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 00:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 00:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharpening and contrast overdone, and needs a tiny clockwise rotation, the horizontal foreground beam is leaning to the left. The idea is nice of course, I must have taken dozens like this by now :) --Kreuz schnabel 15:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Striking but the image quality is not quite there IMO, with the sharpening haloes. Cmao20 (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A great idea with a fixable tilt ruined by oversharpening. Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:Bay-breasted warbler in Central Park (43472).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2021 at 03:41:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Parulidae_(New_World_Warblers)
Info A bay-breasted warbler. A lucky shot of this tiny bird. It just kind of appeared in a bush maybe six feet from me and I snapped a few pictures in the 10 seconds before it seemed to notice I was there and fly away. Messy background, but a rare opportunity for a close/sharp shot. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Where is this thorn bush? In the Ramble? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Added location. It was in a bush at the base of Belvedere Castle. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great pic. --Stepro (talk) 05:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Green tint. I've find that when photographing birds under dense vegetation I need to dial in a pretty severe magenta shift to get the colors looking natural. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't want to make a big adjustment, but I uploaded a new version. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm, this still doesn't look like any of the others in the category. The breast should be white, not yellow-green. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done again Cmao20 (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this picture, the new version is an improvement. -- Radomianin (talk) 11:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Busy background, common bird Poco a poco (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Poco, and King's concerns about the color. Daniel Case (talk) 04:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I didn't support because of the busy background. It does seem that the covert tips are pure white, though I've never seen the bird. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok, I've uploaded one more version with a different white balance. I don't feel comfortable going any further than this, though. If the subject is among lots of leaves, light will bounce off the leaves and turn white (or, if we're looking at the coverts, "slightly buffy") a bit green. I don't see a problem with that. Balancing the image to make the whites completely white makes the whole scene unrealistic IMO. If people feel that the light caused by the leaves means it shouldn't be FP, I can live with that. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lepsius-Expedition-Cheops-Pyramide (full).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2021 at 11:13:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Historical#1850-1900
Info created by Johann Jakob Frey - uploaded by Andrew J.Kurbiko - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose maybe a nitpick but I think better quality digitization is possible. This one has noticeable jpeg artifacts if you zoom in. Buidhe (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe its just the structure of paper --Andrei (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hulged (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Buidhe. Daniel Case (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tondo Doni 2021.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2021 at 12:00:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Religion#Christianity
Info created uploaded nominated by Commonists -- Co mmon ists 12:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Co mmon ists 12:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better if the image is a perfect square. Yann (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like this Yann? Thank you. --Co mmon ists 14:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Support --Yann (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sharpening artefacts everywhere; does neither the artwork nor the camera justice IMO. --A.Savin 16:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Savin. Poor quality and oversharpened. --Kreuz schnabel 21:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is an external image from Google Art Project using {{PD-ART}}. That means the 3D frame needs to be removed and all versions containing it deleted. See Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#When_should_the_PD-Art_tag_not_be_used?. --El Grafo (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but you could have written to me in private. Greetings.--Co mmon ists 15:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I think we have a misunderstanding here: The "source" section of the file description says it's taken from the Google Art Project, so I thought we had a potential copyright problem with the 3D frame (that's why I brought it up here). But it's really your own photo, right? Then there's no problem at all, but you'll probably want to replace the line |source = {{From Google Cultural Institute|mwEx1TY1xbJCwg}} with |source = {{own}}. Otherwise Google will get all the credit for you photo ;-) Sorry for the mixup, please feel free to remove or collapse this whole conversation afterwards. --El Grafo (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done thanks--Co mmon ists 17:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elbaite with albite - São José da Safira, Minas Gerais, Brazil.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2021 at 13:45:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Rocks_and_minerals#Minerals
Info all by Ivar (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you check please Ivar. The top of the crystal does not seem at all sharp. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charlesjsharp: do mean areas with light reflection? Please add a note. --Ivar (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

done. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see no sharpness difference, except bright and small light reflecting areas. --Ivar (talk) 05:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Co mmon ists 20:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe the left is a bit dark (this why I hesitated), but looking again at it I think it’s an impressive shot. --Aristeas (talk) 09:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I thought at first that this was some sort of exotic mixed drink that I'd be willing to try, then a stylized sculptural rendition of one. Yes, the upper right of the rock is unsharp, and that's why this a weak support, but it's still a support. Daniel Case (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sparrow Leaves Windermere Ooty Nilgiris Jan18 D72 5146.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2021 at 09:15:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Passeridae_(Old_world_sparrows)
Info House sparrow (f) Passer domesticus with leaves, perched on roof, Ooty, India. Created by Tagooty - uploaded by Tagooty - nominated by Tagooty -- Tagooty (talk) 09:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tagooty (talk) 09:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much of the bird missing; harsh light. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Impressive detail, yet overexposed. --Kreuz schnabel 16:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the feedback. I withdraw this nomination. --Tagooty (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:A Hundred Steeds.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2021 at 22:46:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Others
Info created by Giuseppe Castiglione / National Palace Museum of Taiwan, uploaded by Shizhao, nominated by Yann (talk)
Info One Hundred Horses, ink and colors on silk by Giuseppe Castiglione (1728). This painting is 94.5 cm high and 7.76 m long.
Support -- Yann (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 23:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent reproduction of an interesting painting by a very interesting painter. --Aristeas (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 11:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Keindahan Taman Nasional Takabonerate.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2021 at 21:02:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Indonesia
Info created by RaiyaniM - uploaded by RaiyaniM - nominated by Danu Widjajanto -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pity the roof is cut off on the left. The description is a bit misleading, as this is not an image of the National Park, while it might have been taken in it. Anything special about this very hut? --Kreuz schnabel 22:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor lighting direction for the huts. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is overprocessed, I believe. Colours seem too saturated and look unnatural. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Alvegaspar. Nice composition, though. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sankt Moritz Lake Piz Muragl.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2021 at 23:31:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland#Grisons (Graubünden)
Info I found this mountainous landscape really serene and peaceful, with the lovely reflections and the crisp, cold atmosphere. I suspect that there will be some opposition on the basis that the colours are not very saturated, but to me that subtlety is part of the photo's charm. created by Isiwal - uploaded by Isiwal - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support the bar is high for landscapes but this one passes IMO Buidhe (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great capture! -- Radomianin (talk) 10:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Instructive --Milseburg (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 17:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --XRay 💬 06:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well done but IMHO even a serene image has to have more wow for FP. --GRDN711 (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Switzerland#Grisons (Graubünden)

File:Soulfly With Full Force 2018 03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2021 at 00:20:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Musicians and singers performing
Info created and uploaded by S. Bollmann - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 00:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 00:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I want to like this pic—it's cool and different from what I usually see at FPC. However, the noise level is too high and microphone in front of the face is not ideal. Buidhe (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very expressive shot. Concert photographers have to shoot at high ISO values most of the time. This is not a controlled environment like macro photography. I like the framing and the overall mood. Let's give concert photographers a fair chance at succeeding here. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Macro photography in the field is not a controlled environment although I know that we see many 'studio' macro images at FP. But why should a concert photographer not be able to do better? The framing especially is strange. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charlesjsharp, the field is controlled in the sense that you can choose to visit when there is a huge powerful lightsource up in the sky, unlike this concert which is inconveniently set towards sunset. Or you can stick some flashes on your camera and go close to the subject, unlike this concert where the subject is inconveniently 27 feet away from the camera, and flash isn't allowed. And you can wait for your subject to alight on a leaf and rest, unlike this concert where the subject has inconveniently decided to sing, play a musical instrument and move his whole body in time with a nearby drum beat. The exposure details (1/250 sec, f/3.5, ISO 2000) indicate no room to lower the ISO without impacting sharpness. Event photographers don't choose high ISO because they think digital noise is appealing, they choose it because they have to, and their customers aren't pixel peeping an 18MP image. Unlike, as usual, Commons FP. -- Colin (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Frank. Regarding virtually all practical purposes (digital use at normal magnification, print, ...) noise is an overrated factor anyway. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support In accordance with F. Schulenburg's and M. Falbisoner's reasonings. -- Radomianin (talk) 10:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I disagree with Buidhe's comment. If you want to capture a rock singer singing, there is often no way around having the microphone in their face (depending in the singer's technique). In that case, it is important, for the microphone not to cover anything important – which is the case here: Eyes, nose, and most of the mouth are clearly visible. What's more is that even the microphone stand is clearly separated from the body, not covering anything at all. In my opinion, that has been handled exceptionally well in this shot. Isolating a subject like this on a busy stage is not an easy task either. The framing feels a bit tight from the thumbnail, but when viewing it large it gives me the feeling of being right there in the first row being squeezed against the barriers. --El Grafo (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per El Grafo and Martin Falbisoner. --Aristeas (talk) 07:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 13:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 06:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I understand the technical issues and that's not a problem. What is is that this just doesn't stand out from other pictures of singers at microphones we have. I'm sure he's engaged in his performance, but the image doesn't capture that for me ... he looks like he might as well be phoning it in. The bottom crop is awkward (and maybe the top one a little too tight) and I don't see what that extra space on the left does for the image. Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#Musicians and singers performing

File:Castle of Kaysersberg (1).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2021 at 08:14:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#France
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 08:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The dirt track in foreground is too dominant for me. Crop suggestion added. --Kreuz schnabel 18:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the composition. The central subject of the photo looks almost insignificant and the vines in the foreground are distracting. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't really work with that sky. Daniel Case (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:De Famberhorst 08-11-2021. (d.j.b) 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2021 at 05:40:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family : Hydnangiaceae
Info Laccaria amethystina (amethyst deceiver) Focus stack of 15 photos.All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 06:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Such a pretty fungus. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 09:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful colours. --Ivar (talk) 13:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 14:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image, but really bad file name Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support though a little more NR can't hurt. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! -- Radomianin (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 08:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tagooty (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support but please, fix the cloning issue (note added) Poco a poco (talk) 06:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment: I don't see a note yet. As soon as I see the note, I'm going to fix it.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --IamMM (talk) 11:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just one more ... --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like a large wad of chewed-up gum. Daniel Case (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kasbah Mosque 1114.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2021 at 08:41:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Morocco
Info All by C messier -- C messier (talk) 08:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kasbah Mosque, as seen through one of the Kasbah gates, Marrakesh. It dates from late 12th century. Support -- C messier (talk) 08:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but has a large unfocused area at the arch. --A.Savin 14:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it would be more impressive with a slight crop, focusing on the lookthrough (annotation added on nomination page). --Kreuz schnabel 18:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice motif, but this kind of composition is no longer that special and it needs something more to become FP. The horizontal shadow cuts through in a distracting way, separating the foreground from the background. At 10 MP, the top corners are also not sharp enough. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, but I also don't like the washed-out look of the color here even if it may be accurate. Daniel Case (talk) 03:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Münster, Observantenkirche -- 2021 -- 9112.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2021 at 06:52:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 06:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 06:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 11:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC) Excellent balanced photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Almost like selective color, except the effect is totally natural. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pleasant light, structured geometry. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Liam2520 (talk) 05:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 07:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 11:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- An easy photo to make, I believe. Here (as in many other cases), the main merit of the photographer is to recognize the beauty in front of the eyes. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Príncipe sunbird (Anabathmis hartlaubii) female.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2021 at 12:31:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Nectariniidae (Sunbirds and Spiderhunters)
Info A sunbird endemic to the Island of Príncipe (142 sq km/ 55 sq mi). All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 14:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 11:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ivar (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I find the background distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 08:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aiguille et Porte d´Aval.jpg, featured[edit]

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

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France#Normandy
Info Cliffs of Étretat: Aiguille and Porte d´Aval. The shooting location can only be reached on foot when the tide is low. All by me. --Milseburg (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Imposing view. As a child, I was once on that beach there and was very impressed by the rocks; this photo gives the impression I had then very well. --Aristeas (talk) 09:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Going to trigger some discussion maybe... but 1. the view is not very impressive. It doesn't strike to me as "hmm how was this taken", on the contrary. And I've been there myself. 2. the light is very so so. Mid day time, giving it the tourist snapshot vibe. And 3. Overall, given how popular a spot this is, I think we can be picky (I have some personal shots I wouldn't dare nominating here) - Benh (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Benh: I like the authentic colors daylight is providing. Do you like evening light more? --Milseburg (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The light is nice, but the composition less so (too much empty space at the top, and the feeling we're missing something at the bottom). As a whole the current nomination is superior. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was just the question whether the orange color of the rocks in the evening light is really preferable to the normal white color in broad daylight. Also note that the shooting position is special. All other images in the category were taken from further above or from the other side. --Milseburg (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do. better mood and better rendering of volumes. But light isn't the only criteria. And my main concern is mostly about the nom not really standing out as a pic of Etretat. Benh (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think there is too much empty space at the left, and it can be cropped out. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. Before doing so, I wait for other opinions. --Milseburg (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the two leading lines on the left side are very nice overall, but the pool of water with a rock in the middle (annotated) is distractingly close to the edge and draws attention away from the leading line. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 11:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 08:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tübingen - Neckarfront - Blick entlang Neckar im Herbst.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2021 at 17:36:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Baden-Württemberg
Info Everything in this autumnal landscape is really harmonious for me - the contrast of the yellow, green and gold colours, the nice soft light, the leading lines and the boats perfectly in keeping with their surroundings. created by Aristeas - uploaded by Aristeas - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shame everything here is in the shadow, boats included. Where are the colors? Hidden behind? -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you very much, Cmao20, for the nomination! – Well, this photo was not meant to be a shot of the boats etc., I wanted to capture the autumn atmosphere over the river and the lines all leading to a single vanishing point. Since the Neckar runs in a west-easterly direction here and since the plane trees on the south side are very tall, the river and its banks are always in the shade during the day in autumn, winter and spring. As for the colours, I had previously reduced the saturation (–5). I have now slightly increased the saturation to the default, ±0 – after all, it is an autumn picture ;–). I made the mid-tones minimally lighter and the sky a bit darker. I think this way the picture reflects the impression I had on that beautiful autumn afternoon. --Aristeas (talk) 09:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the edited version: Atmospheric autumn picture with a variety of colors and shapes. -- Radomianin (talk) 10:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I'm failing to see what is so special about it. Nice autumn colours though. - Benh (talk) 10:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. -- -donald- (talk) 11:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Usually I like Aristeas' autumn pictures (and this one is not bad either), but this time tend to agree with Benh + Basile, sorry. --A.Savin 12:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The colors are amazing but not the light, sorry. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others, and I don't relate to the criticism of the shadows, which make the photo more serene and relaxed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The colors seem extinct, because the light is absent -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Hulged (talk) 06:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 11:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lovely autumn colours, but does not match the FPs in the gallery. --Tagooty (talk) 04:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tagooty, I am not sure I understand this reasoning. Why does it have to be similar to the other FPs in the gallery in order to be promoted? Cmao20 (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose Tagooty finds the FPs in the gallery more striking. Like this one? -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An FPC should be of similar or better impact than the Gallery, or a view that is not in the Gallery. --Tagooty (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --IamMM (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Автоцистерна для перевозки химических веществ.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2021 at 16:55:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Trucks_and_buses
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Alexander Novikov -- Alexander Novikov (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I entirely fail to see why this should be one of the very finest images we’ve got on Commons. It’s rather straightforward, of mediocre quality, and not extraordinarily interesting. --Kreuz schnabel 22:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Alexander Novikov (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:2020-01-24 01 STAR FLYER - IMO 8915433.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2021 at 04:05:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport#Sailing ships
Info Four-masted barquentine, Star Flyer, off the coast of Saint Barthélemy in the Caribbean. created - uploaded - nominated by GRDN711 (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GRDN711 (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful shot of a beautiful ship. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 04:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin. --Aristeas (talk) 07:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep (Talk) 08:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dimorphotecaeclonis1-2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2021 at 22:45:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Subfamily : Asteroideae
Info all by me Ezarateesteban 22:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 22:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Pity, I felt this was a deserving candidate, but not with canvassing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gallery link improved. Your friendly gallery link service ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 07:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!!! Ezarateesteban 11:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Time to withdraw your previous nomination then. We don’t need three versions of the same shot here. --Kreuz schnabel 08:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Already nominated. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just I withdraw previous nomination, what's wrong with this version? @Charlesjsharp: Ezarateesteban 11:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose crop is still not for me and crop has reduced available detail resulting in a small image. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What crop do you propose @Charlesjsharp: ? Ezarateesteban 12:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Square. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See now @Charlesjsharp: Ezarateesteban

Oppose flower is off-center Buidhe (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Buidhe: now it's centered Ezarateesteban 23:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This works for me. Daniel Case (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel. A nice capture, imo. I have already supported the alternative version of the withdrawn nomination. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, there are better pictures of this species in our gallery of flowers. My own FP does no longer deserve the star, in my opinion. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it does. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support nice capture. Marinna (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 20:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Scann (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vote removed by the author (2) -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Pepe piton (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC) updated score -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New vote total: 6-4, not featured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dik dik.tif[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2021 at 11:09:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family : Bovidae (Bovids)
Info created by Buiobuione - uploaded by Buiobuione - nominated by Buiobuione -- Buiobuione (talk) 11:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Buiobuione (talk) 11:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Getting the FP nomination process right is quite tricky, but have a look at the guidelines on how to choose the right gallery. QI would be a good place to nominate some images. The background is unfortunate. tif files are annoying large, jpg is a better bet so everyone can view the image easily. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, no. Unsharp (DoF too shallow and motion blur), and the rope in the background ruins it, shooting like a bullet through his head. --Kreuz schnabel 16:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment TIF format. My computer can't display this picture without downloading it -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gallery link fixed. --Aristeas (talk) 08:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background, the horizontal line. --Cayambe (talk) 13:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Low quality, poor composition. Yann (talk) 09:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Opole Village Museum - Radłów.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2021 at 10:34:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Poland
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 10:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 10:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose fail to see what makes this one of the best images on Commons. No wow Buidhe (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Buidhe - a good image that keeps detail in the sunshine on snow but not enough wow for FP IMHO. --GRDN711 (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the shadows and the general setting of the scene don't work for me. Admittedly, buildings like this aren't easy to photograph. However, I don't consider this the best that Commons has to offer and agree with my colleague Buidhe. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Príncipe golden weaver (Ploceus princeps) female 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2021 at 11:52:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Ploceidae_(Weavers)
Info In 1914, São Tomé and Príncipe (under Portuguese rule) was the World's largest producer of cocoa beans. Today, annual production is 3000 tons. The Ivory Coast is now the leading prooducer with an annual production of 2m tons. An endemic weaver on Príncipe. She knows that yellow = ripe. I could crop the blurred cocoa pods, but think they add context. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 10:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cbrescia (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep (Talk) 08:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:View of Ptuj Castle 03.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2021 at 08:31:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Slovenia
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 08:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Something went wrong in stitching here: while most of the frame is perfectly sharp, there are some irritating soft/unsharp patches visible. I added a few annotations on the file description page. --Kreuz schnabel 09:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And the shadow in the sea bottom right? Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Building Up the Yellow River Delta.jpeg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2021 at 11:39:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images#Asia
Info created by NASA - uploaded by StellarHalo - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 11:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 20:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 07:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 22:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Common kingfisher on a branch opening it's wings.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2021 at 13:09:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family_:_Alcedinidae_(Kingfishers)
Info created, uploaded & nominated by Alexis Lours. Common kingfisher doing an intimidation display. -- Alexis Lours (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alexis Lours (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. (Correct the word "its" in the filename after the nomination period is over. It should have no apostophe.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality is not the best, but I really like how the branch enhances the directionality of the bird. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 02:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Appealing instant -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King of Hearts – great pose! --Aristeas (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 12:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Consider cropping a little tighter with same aspect ratio such that you lose more of the out-of-focus branch on either end and make a stronger presentation of the kingfisher. --GRDN711 (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Cayambe (talk) 13:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Joydeep (Talk) 08:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 22:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family_:_Alcedinidae_(Kingfishers)

File:Common tern landing on a branch.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2021 at 16:12:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus_:_Sterna
Info created & uploaded by Alexis Lours - nominated by Alexis Lours -- Alexis Lours (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alexis Lours (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The wing is very close to the top edge - any chance we can see a bit more? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Picture was taken as is, so not a possibility without adding some fake background in. Alexis Lours (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's an old and commonly applied trick, not necessarily bad. Regards --A.Savin 17:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded a new version of the file. King of Hearts, A.Savin --Alexis Lours (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good moment and composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 06:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good capture, but many parts overexposed --Llez (talk) 07:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Yes and quite soft overall. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful, the eye is sharp. --Aristeas (talk) 09:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan and Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support great action shot --Ssprmannheim (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charlesjsharp --Tagooty (talk) 04:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 07:00, 23 November 2
Support Great photo. Composition and the beauty of the animal mitigate the minor shortcomings. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's time for this picture's tern in the spotlight ... Daniel Case (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep (Talk) 08:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 22:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus_:_Sterna

File:Песчинки-1. Желтый строительный песок.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2021 at 14:12:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Rocks and minerals
Info created and uploaded by Alexander Klepnev, nominated by Yann (talk)
Info Sand grains of yellow building sand. Microscope Lumam R-8. EPI lighting. The photo of each grain of sand is the result of multifocal stacking.
Support Ordinary subject, but with unordinary point of view. High quality and resolution. -- Yann (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support the edges are bit soft, but nevertheless FP for me. --Ivar (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 17:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 07:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For a mundane subject like this, the technical quality could be better. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlesjsharp: Mundane? This is sophisticated setup picture, taken with a microscope and multifocal stacking. Certainly not "Mundane". And what's the issue exactly? Yann (talk) 13:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I described the grains of sand as mundane (=boring). As Ivar has pointed out, the edges are soft. Some grains are soft all over. The point of view of a grain of sand cannot be 'unordinary'. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See [side discussion]. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ivar. Overall both beautiful and instructive. --Aristeas (talk) 08:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fascinating and FP-worthy. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question I think this is quite interesting, but is there a typical mineral composition of yellow building sand, or might it be important to know where the sand is from? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow building sand is a generic term for manufactured sand. You will notice that many of the sand grains are the same material. The edges of the grains are all rounded due to the manufacturing process. Nothing like sand from a beach, and hence, I feel this image has minimal EV. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to have a similar image of natural sand, including for comparaison. But this image has high educational value in itself, to show form and colors of manufactured sand grains at the microscopic level. Yann (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sand grains are not of the same materials, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it also shows that manufactured sand is not so homogeneous. Yann (talk) 08:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support "I don't like sand ..." But I do like this image. Daniel Case (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 22:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Brown booby (Sula leucogaster leucogaster) Principe.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2021 at 10:22:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Sulidae (Boobies and Gannets)
Info The existing FPs are of the blue-footed booby. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:22, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:22, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The face is mostly in shadow, and for a bird of this size a soft 7.8 MP isn't quite enough to cut it on technical grounds. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Yes, I think you're right. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Catedral de San Pablo, Mdina, isla de Malta, Malta, 2021-08-25, DD 150-152 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2021 at 21:31:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Malta
Info St Paul's Cathedral, Mdina, Malta Island, Malta. The Metropolitan Cathedral of Saint Paul is a Roman Catholic cathedral founded in the 12th century and according to tradition it stands on the site of where Roman governor Publius met St. Paul following his shipwreck on Malta. The original cathedral was severely damaged in the 1693 Sicily earthquake, so it was dismantled and rebuilt in the Baroque style to a design of the Maltese architect Lorenzo Gafà between 1696 and 1705. The cathedral is regarded as Gafà's masterpiece. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Imposing and beautiful. A perfect work as usual :) -- Radomianin (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks great at full size on my 23.5-inch monitor. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 06:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin. --Aristeas (talk) 08:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 18:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ur noms should be all like this (carefully and thoroughly processed). - Benh (talk) 10:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep (Talk) 08:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 23:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Spain’s chilly blanket ESA22415247.jpeg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2021 at 00:54:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images#Europe
Info Snowfall from storm Filomena over the Iberian Peninsula. Created by Copernicus Sentinel-3 - uploaded by OptimusPrimeBot - nominated by Señor Aluminio -- Señor Aluminio (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Señor Aluminio (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting, though I wish the photo were bigger. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. Gallery link refined by adding the section anchor. --Aristeas (talk) 08:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. -- Radomianin (talk) 11:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Co mmon ists 18:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cbrescia (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tordo verde (Labrus viridis), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-21, DD 20.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2021 at 21:31:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family_:_Labridae_(Wrasses)
Info Green wrasse (Labrus viridis), Arrábida National Park, Portugal. This species of wrasse is native to the eastern Atlantic Ocean from Portugal to Morocco, as well as through the Mediterranean Sea to the Black Sea. This species is found around rocky reefs amongst the rocks (as depicted in the image) or in eelgrass beds. The green wrasse grows to about 35 cm (14 in) and is a plump fish with a moderately large head. The eyes are large and the nostrils each have a double opening. The total population is in decline as its habitat is being degraded as seagrass meadows disappear, so the International Union for Conservation of Nature has assessed its conservation status as "vulnerable". c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Co mmon ists 18:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support --GRDN711 (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 04:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep (Talk) 08:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Altschlossfelsen 09.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2021 at 07:44:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Rhineland-Palatinate
Info I like the interplay of sunlight and the shadows of the trees on the rock; created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 07:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. Gallery link improved (there is an own ‘Natural Scenes’ gallery page for Germany). --Aristeas (talk) 09:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The interaction of light and shadow convince me. -- Radomianin (talk) 11:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 06:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 11:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Gets very unnatural-looking in the corners, particularly the upper ones. Daniel Case (talk) 03:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per |Daniel Case. --Fischer.H (talk) 10:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep (Talk) 08:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:STS-114, External tank test.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2021 at 13:57:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Space_exploration
Info created by NASA ~~Uoaei1~~, uploaded by BetacommandBot ~~Uoaei1~~, nominated by Tpdkuroi -- Tpdkuroi (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not my image, and I would not support it here --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Tpdkuroi (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not good enough to impress me, given the resolution.--Peulle (talk) 11:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not one of the best pics on Commons imo Buidhe (talk) 14:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality at just 6 megapixels. --Kreuz schnabel 22:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not even a QI. --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might be a good VI in the right scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are a lot of striking ways the space shuttles could have been photographed. This isn't one of them. Daniel Case (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:T-Centralen central underground metro station Stockholm 2016 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2021 at 17:09:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Transport#Metro_stations
Info created by Julian Herzog - uploaded by Julian Herzog - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A clear wow from my side, imo everything is just perfect here. -- Radomianin (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent --Tagooty (talk) 03:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Danu Widjajanto (talk) 10:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Acorn woodpecker holding a nut in its beak-0225.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2021 at 03:08:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family_:_Picidae_(Woodpeckers)
Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 04:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful light, colours, background. Tweaked the gallery link. --Aristeas (talk) 07:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Danke! Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, everything is right here. A highly professional capture. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support What kind of nut is it?--Ermell (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly have no idea. Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 09:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice moment - can you reduce bright highlights on white feathers? Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tried – with the result that I'd like to keep it this way. I remember the lighting being like this during this shot. Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Danu Widjajanto (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great catch :-) Basile Morin (talk) 12:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Supportvery nice--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 15:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hulged (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 03:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 07:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:22, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep (Talk) 09:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Na, dann guten Appetit! --Schnobby (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 23:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 26 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family_:_Picidae_(Woodpeckers)

File:PIA22939 - Jupiter's Brown Barge.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2021 at 21:47:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy#Jupiter
Info created by NASA - uploaded by Realmaxxver - nominated by Realmaxxver -- Realmaxxver (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Realmaxxver (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 23:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Upsampled? Noisy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shows odd portion of planet. Liam2520 (talk) 05:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low level of detail at full resolution. Weird composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very noisy for this kind of image, and really an image meant to show us the "Brown Barge" could have focused more on it as a subject ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:2021-10-19 Deutsche Meisterschaften im Skeleton Altenberg 2021 by Sandro Halank–079.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2021 at 12:42:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Individual snow sports
Info created & uploaded by Sandro Halank - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 12:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 12:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 15:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support High level of noise (10'000 ISO) but well frozen (1/3200 s). Overall interesting composition and original content -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support background could benefit form NR. --Ivar (talk) 06:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 07:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Joydeep _Talk 08:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile. --Aristeas (talk) 09:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bled Castle (1).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2021 at 08:17:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Slovenia
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 08:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tilted, easily corrected. Yann (talk) 09:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yann; Done. Tournasol7 (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Lovely light. However, the composition leaves a bit to be desired: the foreground is just nondescript water, and the rest of the image isn't enough to get it over the finish line IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically well done but regretfully does not have enought wow as FP. --GRDN711 (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looking again at it (now that the tilt has been corrected) I really like it. The ray of sunshine hits the castle, and the shadow stripe before it makes a bit dramatic. By showing the situation of the castle between water and mountains it makes the castle appear impregnable. --Aristeas (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me no wow recognizable. --Fischer.H (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Aristeas --Llez (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good lighting. --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per GRDN711. Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:Spielfiguren (surreal) -- 2021 -- 8820.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2021 at 08:45:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Toys
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 08:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 08:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, but don't ask why. I have no idea. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surreal photography is a little bit difficult. Sometimes you just have to try something. --XRay 💬 11:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ivar (talk) 13:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting, something different and fascinating. --Radomianin (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not sure about the vignetting, but the psychokinesis works -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~absolutely no educational value whatsoever~~ - just kidding. Of course! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oops, I thought I had already voted for this one. --Aristeas (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😮--Co mmon ists 20:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Appreciate the imagination and effort taken to make this image but am troubled by the vignetting and the magenta-green and yellow-blue tints in a neutral gray background. This suggests that the background may be underexposed (needs more fill light from the bottom and back) even as the subject is correctly exposed from the front light. --GRDN711 (talk) 04:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the background isn't really neutral (!) gray (craft cardboard). There are always touches of different colors. And the vignetting is the result of a special light: a flashlight (pocket light? - I don't know the English word.). IMO it's important to have the game pieces correctly exposed. A studio light would make a uncomfortable light. --XRay 💬 10:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --IamMM (talk) 11:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support For the idea, although the outcome could be better. For example, I agree that a white background would work better. By the way, is the shadow of the levitated piece real? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The light from the flashlight was held so that the shadow of the middle one, the levitated, was visible. So, for the most part, the shadow is real. --XRay 💬 05:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep (Talk) 08:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File: Lamin adat Adjang Lidem Malinau.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2021 at 10:42:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Indonesia
Info created by RaiyaniM - uploaded by RaiyaniM - nominated by Danu Widjajanto -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient wow, and a 11.5 MP architectural image should have better pixel-level quality. A wider aspect ratio would frame the subject better. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality for a simple static object, and crop too tight on the sides. --Kreuz schnabel 22:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Slightly leaning in on both sides, tight crop and little wow -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In addition to flaws Basile noted, I don't see why we need so much lawn and oversaturated-looking sky. At this point I think it's time for the nominator to withdraw this one. Daniel Case (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]