Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/October 2017

File:Castillo de Kórnik, Kórnik, Polonia, 2016-12-21, DD 05.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2017 at 20:56:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info Kórnik Castle, Kórnik, Greater Poland Voivodeship, Poland. The castle was constructed in the 14th century but it was remodeled to its current neogothic style in 1855 by the architect Karl Friedrich Schinkel. The fortification is today owned by the Polish state and houses a museum and the Kórnik Library. All by me, Poc o² 20:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 20:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A castle reflected in ice, now there's not something we see here every day. Could you just get rid of all the heavy purple and green CA (and perhaps some of the disembodied twigs), please. --cart-Talk 21:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
cart: CA and twigs (left side and one on top right corner) are gone. Poc o² 08:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great, thanks! --cart-Talk 08:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support--fedaro (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ice reflection, nice! Some barely noticeable CA. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support One more note, Diego. --Ivar (talk) 09:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ivar: Gone, the last rework was indeed a bit sloppy Poc o² 16:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support for sure. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice -- Thennicke (talk) 12:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Now you spoiled it - overexposured. --Mile (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mile: Actually, it wasn't me, applying a lens correction (which I forgot, that's why there was some CA) the exposure was increased automatically, I didn't check it until now. I didn't find it such a big problem, but I kept it as it was (at least the top half). Poc o² 18:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mile: Didn't I hit the problem? Poc o² 18:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Flag-of-Israel-4-Zachi-Evenor.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2017 at 19:33:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Dr. Zachi Evenor - uploaded by MathKnight - nominated by MathKnight -- MathKnight ✡ (Talk) 19:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MathKnight ✡ (Talk) 19:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As an photo it is ok but not making me go wow. However technically the image is quite flawed. I don't know what processing/Photoshopping has gone on, but it is quite crudely cut out or the sky has been crudely darkened or something like that. -- Colin (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar’s comment, and purple fringe.--Jebulon (talk) 22:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - So, it's a flag, and it's not even perfectly sharp. Photos of flags might be useful Valued Images, but just a flag, with nothing else to provide interest, seems like a tough subject for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a flag, per others. Daniel Case (talk) 04:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 05:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel case. --Karelj (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ordinary flag picture. -- Pofka (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Proboscis monkey (Nasalis larvatus) juvenile Labuk Bay.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2017 at 16:56:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info I am not a very happy little monkey. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Given that the place is a kind of park where shouldn't be a problem to take this kind of shots (please, shout if I am wrong) and not a wild place where it is a matter of luck to meet one, and animals will not be standing anywhere awaiting to be photographed, I find the quality and lighting not so good here, specially compared to the FP of yours of the same specimen that became FP 2 years ago. --Poc o² 18:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a park. They're wild, but they are fed and so habituated, so photography is not at all difficult. I chose this one for the mood. Juvenile monkeys turn away and sulk when disciplined just like we do. Charles (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I talk here as someboby who just came back after 3 weeks Alaska wildlife photo hunting with rather little luck about the animals I found and the conditions available to take the picture when the animals where at shot distance. Poc o² 20:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it happens. I have so many frustrating days. Mind you, if it was easy we wouldn't bother to do it. Charles (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm OK with this. Daniel Case (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine for me --Shishir 3:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Regretful oppose. Some problem on a face: shadow, noised and not so sharp. Just not enough quality for FP, sorry. And per Poco: promoted FP is better. Very friendly -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Poco and George above. Yann (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I don't think one is going anywhere. Charles (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 07:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Weissenstein Puch Drau Fluss-Landschaft 08112015 8744.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2017 at 14:11:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
I withdraw my nomination created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The color of the sky looks a little too cyan; could you check the WB? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Done @King of Hearts: Took some of the sky's cyan off. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much unsharpness. Daniel Case (talk) 04:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thank you very much. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 15:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Сигнални светла за електрична врата.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2017 at 22:51:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info all by me. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, I'm not impressed by the motif or overwhelmed by the quality. Good QI, but not an FP for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-Per Ikan--Ermell (talk) 12:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it might have worked better with a smoother-textured, yet more sharply rendered, background. Daniel Case (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 15:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Црна Река кај Возарци.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2017 at 21:17:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info all by me. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is too much empty sky, the lighting is good but not great, and the scenery is not that remarkable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. Also, slightly grainy/blotchy sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ordinary river scene. Those sand mountains in the background gives it some extra spice but it is still simply too ordinary to be FP. -- Pofka (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 15:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vilnius Old Town Skyline at dusk, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2017 at 19:20:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Pofka -- -- Pofka (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeComposition too busy and not understandable for me. Trees visually too appealing in foreground, spoiling the main subject which is presumably the cityscape.--Jebulon (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, nothing to make this stand out from other cityscapes. Daniel Case (talk) 04:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tilted --Mile (talk) 08:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Illuminations were quite nice here and the quality is really high of every detail at night, so I decided to give it a try. Probably it will not succeed. -- Pofka (talk) 12:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 15:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:2016.10.05.-03-Lauten-Weschnitz--Kleiner Feuerfalter.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2017 at 17:12:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp lower wing, the upper wing (mostly its very top) is doubtful a bit as well when comparing with the tail. -- Pofka (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Pofka. The standard of FP butterflies is very high, partly because of all the great FPs you've uploaded. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Hockei (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 15:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Two girls, by Abo Ngalonkulu, 2016 (Unsplash).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2017 at 20:10:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Abo Ngalonkulu, uploaded by Fæ, nominated by Yann (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hamilton style portrait. We can't have pictures by David Hamilton, but this can be a nice substitute to illustrate the style. -- Yann (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is pretty soft and washed-out looking to me. Please help me (us?) understand what you think is great about the photo; maybe I'll learn something. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of David Hamilton

- This is on purpose. Don't you know Hamilton's works? Regards, Yann (talk) 07:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is nothing like David Hamilton's work. Charles (talk) 09:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully not since many of his photos are borderline child pornography. --cart-Talk 10:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't know what you are talking about. First result on Google: [1]. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article about him and picture google 'David Hamilton' you might feel differently. --cart-Talk 10:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read it before creating this nomination. One think is the accusations against him, another one is his pictures, which are world wide recognized as works of art, except by a few prudish guys. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about this photo or any of his many beautiful pictures of young children. My comment was regarding the nude or semi-nude photos of underage girls he has also done. If I had a daughter about 12-16 years-old, I would not like to have her photographed half-nude, however artfully, and the photos published in books and online. If that makes me a "prudish guy", so be it. --cart-Talk 14:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that the models were quite happy to be photographed. Anyway, this is to show a photography style, not to discuss Hamilton's working methods. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Unindent] So discuss his style. What's great about this photo? I don't assume something is good just because it looks (or doesn't look) like the work of someone famous. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support auch wenn Hamilton nie braunhaarige Mädchen fotografiert hat. --Ralf Roleček 12:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on its own merits; it's a well-done portrait. ~~Walking this back to Neutral; there are some dust spots that could be cleared up.~~ Daniel Case (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose after having taken a good close look while leaving the notes; there's just too much noise and unsharpness for this to be an FP here. Daniel Case (talk) 02:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Daniel Case: Could you please leave a note? Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have; however see above. Daniel Case (talk) 02:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Disregarding all similarities with other photos or works and judging this purely on its own merits and the genre it is done in, I will unfortunately oppose it. It is a good attempt at getting a dreamlike almost fairy tale atmosphere but there are details that makes it not quite there. The bottom and right crop is cutting the right girl a bit too much, the light is a bit too dull and flat, there should be at least some spark or highlights in the hair. I'm not a fan of the blue nail polish either, it clashes with the rest of the colors in the image and distracts from the face so close by. For a dreamlike portrait, you should go all in with romance. Sorry. --cart-Talk 20:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 10:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm not impressed by this hazy, somewhat unsharp picture, and no-one's explained to me why I should be. I find it a bit uncomfortable to look at this overly bright picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I can't fix these blurry reviews. Yann (talk) 08:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 15:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Garde et Officier Régiment cavalerie garde républicaine.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2017 at 14:49:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
I withdraw my nomination all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support An old one (2012 !) But as I just met the cavalry regiment a few minutes ago in the streets of Paris, it remembers me this picture. I think the compo is good (military looking right, waiting the arrival of the President, and the horses absolutely don't care, both looking left). An excellent document too: it shows in details the differences of uniforms, equipments and harnesses, between a Guard (gendarme, left) and an Officer (captain, right), of the cavalry regiment of the french "Garde Républicaine". White pants are worn only when the Chief of State (the President) is present. This prestige military unit belongs to the Gendarmerie Nationale.-- Jebulon (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I like the colors and the uniforms but the background is too busy. Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very good for me. I like it how the horsemen are looking to the right and the horses to the left. Probably the photographer could not remove the fence in the background. I don't think that it is disturbing. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 06:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A well captured moment, very Jebulon-esque, I only wish the left side was not so close to the horse but maybe that couldn't be avoided. --cart-Talk 08:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tourist shot....nothing more for me,sorry --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "Tourist shot" is not an argument by itself to decline.--Jebulon (talk) 10:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Depends what he means by "tourist shot" - sometimes the language barriers between users from different countries mean that some things get lost in translation. A colleague of mine who is a photography teacher explained to our students yesterday that he's giving good grades for well-composed shots, where the lighting, framing etc. is clearly planned and well-executed, and he remarked that "casually aiming a camera and clicking the button is something any tourist can do". So that could be a thing; a difference between a "tourist shot" and a well-composed quality image. Perhaps he could clarify what he meant.--Peulle (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Peulle. I understand very well, and there is absolutely no lose in translation."casually aiming a camera and clicking the button is something any tourist can do" is also my definition of a "tourist shot". Livio used these deprecatory words a lot of times here in FPC, for several, very different and various cases, and recently twice for pictures of mine. I think I've proved here for years that I'm not a tourist with a camera (well, I am, but not for "Commons"), please see my user's page. So I need a serious, solid and argued explanation of what is a "tourist shot" for Livio. If not, I will claim that Livio mades some "tourist reviews". --Jebulon (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peulle and Jebulon "tourist shot" : a shot that anyone can do that is not complicated, it isn't well composed .... do I have to explain what isn't well composed or does it come alone? --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per the positive remarks of others. The background is absolutely fine and pleasant in my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitively not a tourist shot. --Yann (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --cart-Talk 09:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per LivioAndronico. --Ryan Hodnett (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and per above too. I especially dislike the busy distracting context and tight crop on the left. IMO on this kind of shots there should be more room where the subjects look at, and not the opposite. - Benh (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It might have worked if not these trees. Now the background is too busy indeed. -- Pofka (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Ican definitely not answer to all these tourist reviews.--Jebulon (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 15:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry no, this is not a « not featured » picture, but a « Withdrawn » one. This is different.--Jebulon (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Centaurea phrygia - Bombus pascuorum - Keila.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2017 at 07:50:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera
Info all by Ivar (talk) 07:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 07:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We cannot see the head and the hairs on the thorax are not in focus. Charles (talk) 08:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Ivar (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 16:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Diva Foja Na Golem Grad.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2017 at 11:24:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Ptahhotep - uploaded by Ptahhotep - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not quite sure what the photographer was aiming at here. I want to move the camera more up, as it is now there is too much ground and the trees look just cut. Not many things in the photo are really sharp either, sorry. --cart-Talk 08:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 16:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Landscape near Szypliszki, Poland.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2017 at 08:30:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 08:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 08:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see a FP here. Nothing special rather boring. --Hockei (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do really like it, it may be too centered but the colors are really nice. --Poc o² 18:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition is special for me, and per Poco --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I, too, do like this combination of pastellike paleness with compositional minimalism, although I think it could benefit from being cropped in more tightly (see note). Daniel Case (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, nothing for me here, per Hockei.--Jebulon (talk) 22:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm pretty much in Hockei's camp, too. It's a well-taken photo, but it doesn't excite me, and I don't find the experience of trying to move my eyes around it particularly pleasurable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great light and colors, but needs to be sharper for 6 MP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Could have been something, but somehow the light makes the colors look very bleak and flat. Sorry. --cart-Talk 08:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Pudelek (talk) 08:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 16:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cortinarius (koprenke).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2017 at 21:08:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family : Paxillaceae
Info Cortinarius mushroom. Paxillus involutus mushroom. My shot. -- Mile (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--fedaro (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Impressive mushroom closeup. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simply great. Focus stacked? Sixflashphoto (talk) 03:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --Mile (talk) 07:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support astonishing --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 11:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lovely mix of sharp textures — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Delicious detail and texture. One of the best mushroom pictures I've seen here in a long time, perhaps ever. Daniel Case (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Certainly a good work but it doesn't touch me. The subject is too close. More distance would be better. I don't like the angle and the background. The focus stack is not consistently completed. --Hockei (talk) 06:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 14:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 13:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better than excellent, if I may say. I prefer this without stacking--Jebulon (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Envy... ;-) --cart-Talk 08:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very quality photo and very tasty mashroom. :)--Brateevsky {talk} 19:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info I changed name, it is Paxillus involutus, correct name. Previous was wrong. Fungi#Family_:_Paxillaceae --Mile (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 14:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hiltpoltstein 1270287.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2017 at 07:35:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info - all by Ermell -- Ermell (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support perfect lighting and colors --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one is good. --Mile (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC) p.S. Interesting this came out from kit lens.[reply]
Support Outstanding. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yeah! great --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, solid and compact. Daniel Case (talk) 07:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good combination of colors. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 16:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:State Opera House Vienna, Austria.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2017 at 22:33:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Thcipriani - uploaded by Thcipriani - nominated by Thcipriani -- Thcipriani (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thcipriani (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be too much tone mapping. The picture looks very flat. Other than that, this is a handsome building. dllu (t,c) 23:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but at 6 MP it really has got to be sharper than that. The roof is also overexposed. (For night shots, it's OK for lights to be overexposed but not large, brightly lit parts of buildings.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. If you can reprocess it with just a contrast adjustment (no tonemapping) it will be "wow" enough for FP - it's a good source image -- Thennicke (talk) 07:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Mile (talk) 10:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Peulle (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 16:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Hermione being escorted by the USS Mitscher (DDG-57) (1).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2017 at 20:02:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info created by U.S. Navy / Michael Sandberg, uploaded by NC224M, nominated by Yann (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting contrast between old and new. -- Yann (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. -- Thennicke (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Although the lighting could be better, the juxtaposition is really a sight to behold. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support KTC (talk) 10:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic scene - glad it was caught on film. :) --Peulle (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I sort of agree with King but the pic could do with a bit of a bottom crop for better balance. --cart-Talk 20:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The horizon is at one third, so it seems very good to me. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 10:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exceptional scene. -- Pofka (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 01:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--fedaro (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 21:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ранкові процедури у пеліканів.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2017 at 13:15:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes
Info created by Ryzhkov Sergey - uploaded by Ryzhkov Sergey - nominated by Anntinomy -- Anntinomy (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Anntinomy (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this heavily processed - e.g. the birds and the water?? Charles (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No response, so I assume this has been very extensively processed. Charles (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice colors. Wow -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though bottom right corner needs to be fixed. --Ivar (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty --Poc o² 17:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Very pretty birds, but am I the only person except for Charles who thinks the water looks strange and not that much like real water? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Could such processing be FP ? Also bottom-right corner isnt processed "well". --Mile (talk) 11:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ----fedaro (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ until bottom is fixed. Yann (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support OK now. Yann (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending a satisfactory explanation of that trace on the right of something that does not appear to be on the bird reflected. Daniel Case (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ryzhkov Sergey or Anntinomy, please fix the lower right corner. We can't have an FP with a tilt correction wedge still in picture. --cart-Talk 08:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel Case, and lower right corner. -- KTC (talk) 09:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 17:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good composition, interesting colors = excellent image for me -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --Ryan Hodnett (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 21:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ZSL London - Citrus swallowtail.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2017 at 21:03:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info Mating couple of ~~Citrus~~ Common lime swallowtail (Papilio ~~demodocus~~ demoleus) inside Butterfly Paradise, London Zoo. All by KTC -- KTC (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough definition/in focus (f2.8) and quite a small picture for a zoo image. Charles (talk) 08:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 17:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 05:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2016I9957 - Белз (Львівський).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2017 at 08:08:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by Мирослав Видрак - uploaded by Мирослав Видрак - nominated by Мирослав Видрак (talk) 08:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Мирослав Видрак (talk) 08:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - What made this photo so much less sharp on the left side? And can it be remedied? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is optical defects. Completely correct only cutting. On this photo, I had cut one side. The other side I've corrected a bit now. --Мирослав Видрак (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Chaotic, no wow. --Karelj (talk) 13:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The edits improved the focus on the left side, but on the whole, I'm not wowed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Foreground is distracting, plus blurred area at lower right. Daniel Case (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much of everything in it. -- Pofka (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grand Temple, Freemasons' Hall, London 2017-09-17-4.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2017 at 12:13:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#United_Kingdom
Info I visited the Freemasons' Hall in London on Open House weekend. This is an impressive Art Deco building, and I don't think we've had a Masonic temple at FP before. The Grand Temple is not normally open to the public other than for events. This is the entire ceiling of the temple hall. The brightly lit mosaic coving is 4.5m deep. You can see another view of the temple hall here. To get it all in required my fisheye lens and the image here has been defished by Lightroom and cropped. The corners suffer a little bit as a result, but I still think it is an impressive image, and remarkably distortion-free considering the extreme angle of view. The image is an HDR from five exposures. More details about the ceiling are on the file description page. All by me. -- Colin (talk) 12:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 12:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Très bonne gestion de la lumière, superbes couleurs. Yann (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Eminent. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's hip to be square.--Peulle (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's what I call an "image à la Gloire du Grand Architecte de l'Univers" !--Jebulon (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just saw it in Flickr. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 19:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the pictures that make me feel weak. --A.Savin 20:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support WClarke 00:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 04:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 21:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Habitual Colin perfection level, a bit small but very sharp (maybe downsized and not only croped?) on any case very well done. Nice lens I think that I will get one soon --The Photographer 02:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is it downsized ? Dont belive this quality would came out in defishing. --Mile (talk) 08:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mile Using HDR you can get a better sharpness than another techniques and maybe Colin is using for this image a merge from several shoots that in the same point can remove noise and improve the sharpening. I already uses this technique because Colin showed me how do that. Also, downsizing is not a bad practice especially if you want improve the sharpness on super sized images, this technique is used by Diliff on his FPs, for example. I don't like use it because it reduce image information and it is not just in a competition with photographers with a small sensor camera, however we are not sure if it is the case, and in any case it is not a FP requeriment, everybody use that ever me and IMHO not a raison to opposing. Also we have the sensor and lens factor and in this case a Samyang 8mm f/3.5 fisheye is extremely sharp and looking for the colin comment in this candidature I can tell you that he just cropped the image. --The Photographer 12:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mile, The Photographer, the image was not downsized (100% scale). However the defish process takes the barrel distortion of the fisheye and stretches the edges and corners out while slightly reducing the centre. I assume Lightroom creates a result that is on-average to the same scale as the original. Since this image is cropped (to remove the walls), the average of the crop was a little bit lower than the original. I measured the width and height of this crop compared to the original and found that a 110% upscale produced the same dimensions. So the image has gone up from 11.11MP to 13.45MP. I'm really quite impressed by Lightroom's defish, though the edges that I cropped off are more stretched and distorted, as one would expect from trying to make a very wide-angle scene into a rectilinear projection. The Samyang 8mm is extremely sharp, especially in the centre, and its main problem I find is purple CA on high-contrast black/white edges in the corners (which there aren't any of here). And yes, the HDR not only helps with dynamic range, but having those exposures essentially eliminates all noise from the image, giving a much sharper image that can be sharpened without causing noise to be enhanced. -- Colin (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Interesting. --Mile (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--fedaro (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the photo and great documentation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mating pair of Cepora nerissa Fabricius, 1775 – Common Gull-Beautiful butterfly of bangladesh.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2017 at 07:08:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info created by Atikur.khokon - uploaded by Atikur.khokon - nominated by Masum-al-hasan -- Masum-al-Hasan (talk) 07:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Masum-al-Hasan (talk) 07:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very soft everywhere. Charles (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed on the butterfly. Daniel Case (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Soft as previously mentioned. It becomes almost blurry when you zoom. -- Pofka (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:17-08-05-Þingvellir-RalfR-DSC 2675.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2017 at 18:52:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Iceland: lake Þingvallavatn at Þingvellir national park with volcanic island Sandey. This is NOT HDR, only RAW developed. all by -- Ralf Roleček 18:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ralf Roleček 18:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As I mentioned in QIC, I could do without the unsharp foreground, but it's a spectacular picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. The foreground is sine qua non. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Too bad road isnt covered in all, but still good shot. --Mile (talk) 06:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad framing, the yellow column in foreground breaks the whole impression. --Karelj (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think the yellow post ruins the photo, but one of the reasons I would support cropping a good deal of the foreground is that not only would that mean getting rid of unsharp ground, but also the unnatural post. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Karelj. Daniel Case (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Karelj. SDKmac (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems, there are toolmarks on the water. --Milseburg (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 05:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Звоно Манастирa Моштаница (Bell Tower, Monastery Moštanica, Republika Srpska).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2017 at 16:26:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info Bell Tower of Monastery Moštanica, Republika Srpska. My shot. -- Mile (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I love the feeling of solidity I get from this closeup. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 10:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 00:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Line scan photo of Shinkansen N700A Series Set G13 in 2017, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2017 at 08:46:37 (UTC)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Info created by dllu - uploaded by dllu - nominated by dllu -- dllu (t,c) 08:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info Since the entire picture is almost 100,000 pixels wide and cannot be displayed by most browsers, I've split the photo into 16 (one per car). They fit together seamlessly. The train only took 5 seconds to pass by. dllu (t,c) 08:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- dllu (t,c) 08:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support for being simply bowled over by this. A high-tech train caught with high-tech photography. This is a good example of when this technique really comes in handy. Photographing the whole length of such a train (with such detail) any other way would require a lot of work. I might also add that the way you display all the photos here is very clever. At first I didn't realize that I was in fact looking at 16 photos when I tugged the slider in the nomination. :) --cart-Talk 10:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, which way is the train going here, i.e. which end of it is acting as locomotive in this shot? --cart-Talk 13:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The train was travelling from left to right in this picture. Like most (all?) high speed trains, the N700A series is an electric multiple unit. Rather than having a single locomotive, the motors are distributed along the entire length of the train. dllu (t,c) 17:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not all high speed trains I think (see the French high speed trains). - Benh (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All TGV are electrical multiple units. See: w:Category:SNCF multiple units. From w:SNCF TGV Sud-Est, "Each set is made up of two power cars and eight carriages (capacity 345 seats), including a powered bogie in each of the carriages adjacent to the power cars." The motors may not be uniformly distributed along every car, but it is a multiple unit in the sense that several cars, including some passenger carriages, have motors. The w:AGV_(train) will have more power bogies along the train length. That said, I looked around and it seems that the w:British Rail Class 43 (HST) is in service on a few lines at 200 km/h, technically making it a high speed train. So, I suppose not all high speed trains are EMUs. dllu (t,c) 20:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:) Interesting. OK I was thinking "of course if there are two power cars, then it's a EMU". But I was wondering with a colleague (a little interested in trains as well) if the two of them were "active" or if only the head one was. I thought the latter so on the principle, I'd have said "single EU". Just found that the two power car are active at the same time anyways. Should have checked before, but thanks. - Benh (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per Cart. Wow! Yann (talk) 11:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. Just... wow! --Gyrostat (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Didn't know about that. That's interesting tech (and here interesting application) imo. - Benh (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per everyone. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 08:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would work well on the wall of a transport museum. -- Thennicke (talk) 08:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question What about a picture you cannot open at full size ? How to see the stitching errors if any ? How to be sure it is not a repetitive pattern of the same car ? Only questions. This is a very spectacular picture and a wonderful idea.--Jebulon (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can check here here. But this is no stitching, very unlikely to have error. - Benh (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jebulon, Benh and those of you who were not here the previous time we had such a photograph, please see my explanation of how this is done here. --cart-Talk 18:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Amazing! One can even see the people sitting inside the train. --Shihir 16:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Whooooooooshwhooshwhooshwhooshwhoosh ... and so forth. Daniel Case (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question Out of curiosity... How does the speed of the subject affect the capture? I believe verticals are affected a little here. Also, do you have to input the speed of the subject at a given moment, or does the thing work like magic? - Benh (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The speed changes the "aspect ratio". Slow objects are stretched horizontally and fast objects are compressed. I only scaled to make sure the train's proportions are correct. The train is moving at a nearly constant speed and its speed cannot possibly change much during the 5 seconds it took to capture this image. As for the slightly slanted verticals, it can be caused by a tilted camera (although I tried my best with a bubble level), or the fact that the camera is rotated about the yaw axis slightly to the right, and the sides of the train are slightly sloped. This can be corrected digitally using a shear transform, but I don't think it's necessary and re-processing the whole thing is quite time consuming due to the large size of the image. dllu (t,c) 18:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for ur answer. I thought if you input the speed in a dedicated software which would work on raw data, the thing would set the "aspect ratio" accordingly (if I were the camera maker, I would provide this possibility). As for the verticals, I was thinking this could be because the thing scans from top to bottom (or the opposite but it doesn't matter). While this shouldn't affect slow moving subject, this should definitely affect fast subject like this train. I also thought software would fix this (if I were the camera maker... :) ). - Benh (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does not scan from top to bottom. Each line is read out simultaneously. I prefer to scan as fast as possible, do all postprocessing, and then scale the image to the right proportions. Scaling the image should always be done as the last step. This way, we can oversample, resulting in less noise and generally better image quality. I actually wrote some scripts to improve image quality. See: [2] (from top to bottom: unprocessed output, odd/even pixel normalization, pixel crosstalk mitigation, black point compensation). dllu (t,c) 18:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite interesting. I can't check everything in details, but this is implying the camera doesn't come with a proper set of tool/soft to make the most of the raw output, and that you work heavily on them with ur homemade scripts. Congrats for the work. It's very interesting, and the result is incredible and worth the pain. - Benh (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit sad though if the camera doesn't let u alter the speed of the capture, so there's no unnecessary sampling between raw data and final output. Even if you don't know the exact speed, just imputing a rough estimation at capture time should greatly improve quality. - Benh (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The camera does let you change the speed of capture, but as I mentioned, it's better to capture as fast as possible and then scale it down later. It gives better image quality this way. dllu (t,c) 20:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now I understand what u meant with "scan as fast as possible". Totally agree with u: capture as fast as possible so you have the "longest aspect ratio" first. Thanks again for sharing some interesting details. - Benh (talk) 04:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --fedaro (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very unusual nom, well done! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Convinced.--Jebulon (talk) 08:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 09:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Never seen longer picture than this one... Nice! -- Pofka (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow indeed, and a technique/camera I don't think I've come across yet. Time to do some research, I think. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm trying to fix the closing post-closing now. --Cart (talk) 11:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 11:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fuente de Neptuno, Antiguo Jardín Botánico, Múnich, Alemania, 2017-07-07, DD 18-20 HDR.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2017 at 08:48:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
Info Neptune Fountain, Old Botanic Garden, center of Munich, Germany. All by me, Poc o² 08:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 08:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The long-time exposure ruins it for me. Ghostly persons in the background, and quite grainy. --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uoaei1: I could get rid of the ghots but to me they don't really play an essential role in the composition. Btw, I got into the water to take this shot... Poc o² 12:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 08:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Poco's response to Uoaei1's oppose. Daniel Case (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but even though u got into the water, I'm not finding the composition special enough (it's basically a subject in a middle and not so much more), and water is too smooth here IMO. - Benh (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh plus grainy background. --Ivar (talk) 07:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I dont get all this noise between the trees, despite normal ISO. ... would plus it if you solve CA on lights. --Mile (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mile: Done Poc o² 18:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: New version updated: (Selective) denoising, cloning out ghosts, perspective correction. Poc o² 16:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now. Its much better than before. --Mile (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 06:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ivar. --Ryan Hodnett (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 18:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kissingen Green Room 0417RM0574.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2017 at 18:21:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Germany
Info created by Ermell - uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Pofka -- -- Pofka (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original and of HQ --Poc o² 21:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral regular noise and extreme (see note) Support Much better now, well done --The Photographer 03:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You were right. Tried to remove the noise. Thanks for your review.--Ermell (talk) 07:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition, still not there for top quality, if using 14mm put 12-40, and set 2 sec delay time if touching camera. --Mile (talk) 07:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @PetarM: Thanks for your advice Petar. If the camera is on the tripod I always use the remote trigger by app, but lying here with my back on the floor it would have made no sense.--Ermell (talk) 07:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice, but the crop is a bit too short at the bottom. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--fedaro (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support per Mile. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sunbird Southern Double-collared 2017 06 18 9863.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2017 at 13:50:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info All by Alandmanson (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alandmanson (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose So many problems resulting from it being so small: posterization on the bird's breast, CA in some areas near the top and unsharpness in spots. And even setting these aside, there's that big distracting orange area in the background. Daniel Case (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The main problem of it is that the bird is really unsharp. As noted by Daniel Case, the background is distracting as well. -- Pofka (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above --Mile (talk) 08:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Landwasserviadukt, aerial video.webm, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2017 at 04:08:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info created by Capricorn4049 - uploaded by Capricorn4049 - nominated by Capricorn4049 -- Capricorn4049 (talk) 04:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info Please look at the video in full resolution -- Capricorn4049 (talk) 04:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Capricorn4049 (talk) 04:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting, well made, including the music, and the multilingual description. Yann (talk) 09:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work. An inspiration for other Wikipedians! Hogne (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic--Ermell (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Top --Poc o² 14:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Diego. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Finally a video that is everything I've been saying our videos should be—properly edited, subtitled with a choice of languages (or no titles at all if the viewer wants that option), and with a music score that is appropriately licensed! I need to let Andrew Lih know about this ... we keep talking about videos like this every year at Wikimania, but we never actually see any to show and say, this is how we should do it. Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: One qualification on the above: I do wish the video's creator had decided not to take that shot with the camera on the tracks and the train running over it. I know it looks cool but it adds little to the video as far as understanding the subject goes. And while I do not know how Schweizerische Bundesbahn feels about this, I can't imagine they like people doing it as it can be potentially disruptive to smooth operations (i.e., how are you so sure that the train driver/engineer knows it's a camcorder/GoPro or whatever and won't think it's a bomb, and call security? And what happens when someone disguises their bomb as one of these things? Most railroads I know of here in the U.S. prohibit people from placing objects on the tracks (and that means anywhere on the tracks, on the ties/sleepers as much as on the rails); again I would imagine their Swiss counterparts would as well).

I know there are quite a few videos on YouTube shot this way all or in part; I have had to talk my son many times out of doing this himself, not least because I do not feel like replacing a camcorder that got smashed to flinders by the undercarriage of a passing train when that fate was perfectly avoidable. Footage like this should really only be taken with the railroad's knowledge and permission.

This is all the more glaring since the drone pilot filmed the train responsibly (as compared to this video). Daniel Case (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support--fedaro (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I watched it till the end! Atsme 📞 02:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Awesome video. SDKmac (talk) 13:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hight EV, nice music, hight quality in general. It would have been excellent to watch the drone pass under the bridge and then give a much closer view of the train interspersed with a distant take. At the end when the train enters the mountain we lose the scene when it leaves the other end of the tunnel of the mountain. You could also have a take inside the train and another one of the drone looking out the train window while walking away. They are just ideas and not criticism, excellent work. You have all my respect, we hope to see more things like these. --The Photographer 15:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support When I first started watching, I forgot that the video player doesn't automatically select resolution (like YouTube, etc.), and was wondering how such low video quality received so much support. In that case, I felt like it may get FP on Wikipedia because the EV is very high, but wasn't so sure about here. Thankfully, I kept reading and saw the link to the full resolution version. :) Very very nice. I don't think it needed the shot from the tracks or the other perspective (it's sort of linear up to that point), but still an easy support. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. --Karelj (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 07:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Klagenfurt Stift Viktring Ost-Ansicht 08062015 4570.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2017 at 09:59:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
I withdraw my nomination created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can see what you were trying to do but unfortunately the trees and path undo the symmetry. Daniel Case (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thank you very much for your honest review. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 12:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schönefeld Germany De-icing-at-Schönefeld-Airport-01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2017 at 10:57:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air_transport
Info De-icing of an aircraft at Berlin Schönefeld Airport

all by -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wow is there, but also lack of sharpness and car lights are distracting. --Ivar (talk) 11:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Well, the usual problem when delivering high res images from a full format camera taken under unfavorable conditions without tripod. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You might have withdrawn too quickly. I'd lean toward supporting the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, very much appreciated, but images that start with an "oppose" rarely make it through here, unless they had been shot under better conditions or presented in a smaller resolution to overcome the visible blur in a high res image. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was also thinking to support. ;) Yann (talk) 09:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 12:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:The world is not enough.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2017 at 21:31:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
Info created by Shantanu Kashyap, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite amusing, and nice golden hour picture. -- Yann (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not very sharp, and the sky seems to be posterized. Less importantly, the filename is not usual for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The user is habitued to use dramatic filters and color alterations. IMHO overprocessed and composition too tight --The Photographer 00:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not of high enough quality. Also meaningless file title.--Peulle (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per everyone else; also cluttered composition. Daniel Case (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination The title was supposed to be humour... Yann (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC) ...*And it was an excellent title (IMO). No need to be always "clinic"--Jebulon (talk) 08:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 12:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Осумаголна купола.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2017 at 20:04:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Architectural elements
Info all by me. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not wow --The Photographer 01:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree. QI, but no wow. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 12:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Row of trees in Roslev.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2017 at 19:17:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info A tourist photo from Denmark. Travelling through north Denmark, you see these rows of trees between fields everywhere in the distance. They must be in thousands of tourist snapshots, so I was a bit surprised they were not very represented here on Commons (AFAICS). I like the starkness of them and in this photo I also like that you can glimpse yet another row in the distance. All by me, -- cart-Talk 19:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 19:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I love the nice and simple motif. But I think we should demand more sharpness out of a 10 MP image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
regretful oppose the focus is not on the trees, unfortunately. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per King of Hearts and Martin, sorry. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination No worries! I knew it was a longshot but since people seems to like the view, let's hope one of our Danish Commoners can pop outside for a similar shot with better quality. --cart-Talk 20:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 12:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beautiful Prespa lake.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2017 at 12:19:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Dodi mk - uploaded by Dodi mk - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Pretty, but too much empty water and featureless sky. Also, noisy and there is a big dust spot above the mountains in the center/right and another one toward the upper left corner. There may be others; those are visible even from full screen size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 12:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ugandan kobs (Kobus kob thomasi).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2017 at 13:49:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info The rare two-headed Ugandan kob! All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent composition -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Charlesjsharp my eyes hurt even looking at thumb...sharpened too much ? --Mile (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC) p.S. agree with George for compo[reply]

No - my usual light sharpening. 21:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Support Slightly too much saturation but still FP quality.--Ermell (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This is very early morning light. Charles (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Amazing shoot, however, excesive tonemaping fixable --The Photographer 01:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've never used tonemapping. 09:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Charles Your picture is amazing, however the build process from RAW has resulted in not real colors nad overprocessed overall. --The Photographer 13:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not actually processed from RAW though I do have the RAW file if anyone has the skills and time!! Charles (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles I could help u, please send me the raw --The Photographer 02:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral per The Photographer. Daniel Case (talk) 07:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I too feel like this is overcooked.--Peulle (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Yann (talk) 07:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unnatural colors and way too many blurred plants everywhere. -- Pofka (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't think "blurred plants" is a fair reason to oppose a wildlife photograph. A 400mm lens will produce serious bokeh no matter what you do. And focus stacking is not an option for moving subjects. -- Thennicke (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support But I agree with the others about the colours. It has the appearance of tone-mapping (canons do this to their jpegs if auto-lighting optimiser is on), which for such a low-contrast scene produces weird colours. I'm not the best here at processing RAW files but I'm happy to give it a go if nobody else volunteers -- Thennicke (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposers. --Ivar (talk) 07:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Charles (talk) 10:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 12:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:2016R1282 - Київ.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2017 at 16:58:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by Мирослав Видрак - uploaded by Мирослав Видрак - nominated by Мирослав Видрак -- Мирослав Видрак (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Мирослав Видрак (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have an opinion about this photo, but what I'm most interested in is why you think this is one of the most outstanding photos on Commons. Please make an argument for it; I'd like to read it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It's my best photo of the window. --Мирослав Видрак (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. However, your best photo of this window could still be a QI and not an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm not convinced; the colours are nice but the composition is somewhat lacking. Adding to that the heavy distortion on the top and the right side, there's the reason for my vote.--Peulle (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. The upper crop may be a bit too tight but otherwise the composition is very good for me. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 06:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. It's also unsharp in those areas. Daniel Case (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks like a random tourist shot taken when exploring a new city in a hurry: 1) it's tilted; 2) top of the upper window decoration is chopped; 3) right side has shadow which covers about 1/4 of the picture (means random timing). -- Pofka (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pofka: , not the first time I notice you use very harsh, unpleasant, hurtful and vexatious words in your reviews. This is useless, and minore the value of your oppose. Please remember that someone, Miroslav, a human being, took this picture. IMO, your oppose review could begin by your "1)".--Jebulon (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Jebulon: It might sound harsh but I do not intend to write it harsh. I'm sorry if it sounds like that. I provided three arguments why I think it looks like a tourist shot taken in a hurry. During my trips I often have the same issues in my pictures like these three due to the same reasons. I delete most of such pictures immediately and try to recapture it without such issues which greatly lowers the value of the image. -- Pofka (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Pofka: Thanks for cool and mellow answer.--Jebulon (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dubrovnik as seen from Srđ - September 2017.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2017 at 15:39:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Croatia
Info The Old Town of ~~King's Landing~~, ~~uh, Quarth~~, well, Dubrovnik, as seen from above, all by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice light and sharpness, but I'm not entirely convinced that the angle is high enough for the perspective distortion to be reasonable.--Peulle (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Peulle, I was standing about 400 meters above sealevel and pointing my lense down. I don’t think it would be reasonable to correct a „distortion“ that actually just shows how one would see the scene in reality - looking down to the town below. —Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--fedaro (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The chopped rocks in the foreground, and the little piece of land in the upper left bother me from a compositional perspective. I don't know if the image could've been taken whilst avoiding that outcome, but it reduces the wow as compared with Diego's images [1] [2] -- Thennicke (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think I agree with you. I wouldn't oppose, as I think it's fine if this photo is featured, but I do like the photos you link better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I like it. Atsme 📞 02:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 05:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 06:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems a little too much tightened. But very beautiful image for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support But I hope this beautiful city will not die because of tourists thrombosis...--Jebulon (talk) 09:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 13:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The overexposed rocks in the foreground are disturbing but the rest of the image is simply great.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eriksberg shipyard crane.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2017 at 22:14:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry#Sweden
Info In the old glory days of Gothenburg's shipbuilding industry, this was where the really big ships were built. Now it's converted into a residential area but the crane remains since it is one of the well-known landmarks in Gothenburg. The photo is not taken with a drone but from deck 8 on MS Stena Danica which provided an excellent way of documenting the north shore of Göta River. All by me, -- cart-Talk 22:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 22:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Imposing. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like something from a model ... Daniel Case (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--fedaro (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It looks like this photo will be featured, and I don't oppose it, but I'd like the scene better in less overcast weather. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Industry#Sweden

File:Maroon Bells (11590)a.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2017 at 22:53:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info all by me — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support When I arrived in this valley in Colorado, my goal was to see the Maroon Bells, but on another side of the valley in the Maroon Bells area was this other dramatic mountain, with striking color and interesting light shining through the clouds. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed, very eyecatching scenery. --A.Savin 00:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Lovely scene, but some unsharpness and CA. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. --as well. I just really wish this was sharper. Sixflashphoto (talk) 06:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharpness so-so, cyan fringe at top of mountains, sky a bit noisy. Very nice place and light.--Jebulon (talk) 08:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per Jebulon and the weak supporters. This is also a rather small picture for a landscape FP - smaller pictures need to be even more outstanding for FP, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good for you for trying to do something different in this location prone to cliché images (I can be smug about it because I didn't go there on my own 2010 trip to Aspen). But apart from the technical issues, I think the shadows of the clouds on the upper peaks unfortunately mar the image to the point that while it's a QI definitely, it's not an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Pleasant place and view of it, however I think the quality of this pictures is outdated for the nowadays FP standards... So that's more like a oppose than support. Pity as it would be a clear FP if not quality issues. -- Pofka (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
New version uploaded - Following on Jebulon's points above, I went ahead and removed the cyan and purple bits of fringe along the top, denoised the sky, and removed a couple black spots/birds in the sky. Perhaps not the best use of my time, since I'm not sure if it will be enough to change people's minds, but it would've been a shame for it not to pass due to something fixable. @Ikan Kekek, Daniel Case, and Pofka: I did not retroactively improve the size of the picture or overall sharpness :), but pinging nonetheless just in case. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Though since my main concerns are really the overall feel of the composition, and then the sharpness, which doesn't compensate for that in my eyes, the changes haven't inspired me to change my vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tiburon (50684).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2017 at 22:32:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info all by me — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I nominated another version of this image a few days ago and made several adjustments based on feedback received early on. I failed to update the nomination with the new version in a timely manner, and on cart's advice, I withdrew to renominate the new version. Sorry for the confusion -- I'm still learning standard FPC processes. It's a museum on the San Francisco Bay, with Angel Island in the immediate background and the city skyline in the far distance, behind a sailboat. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It has all the qualities we normally see in photos of churches and castles. It's refreshing to see a more normal building shot this way. The composition is flawless IMO, even down to the city skyline in the background and the perfectly placed sailboat in front of it. --cart-Talk 08:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK, this version works. Daniel Case (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality, but nothing really special to make it FP. Yann (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not special for me either. Looks like a everyday shot. -- Pofka (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per abobe and per my comments in the former nom Poc o² 21:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 01:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good composition --Milseburg (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Milseburg and others. This doesn't hit me over the head with amazement, but it's a very good, relaxing photo that really gives a sense of place. I have yet to visit Tiburon, but I recognize the feel of the California coast, and of course San Francisco is visible in the background (you were lucky it wasn't fogged over at that time). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special --Jebulon (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 05:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special. --Karelj (talk) 13:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know if this is a standard thing to do, but I meant to do this as soon as I renominated -- pinging people who opined in the previous nomination (supporters and opposers) who have not weighed in yet. @PumpkinSky, King of Hearts, Juliancolton, Shishirdasika, and Saffron Blaze: apologies for the ping if you've already looked and abstained. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Fixed Shishirdasika's username. Sorry, went by signature. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ville de Québec 05.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2017 at 01:03:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Thanks to Ikan Kekek for your recomendation and comment in QIC. Cite: Yeah, great photo! I'm almost a bit tempted to consider it a possible FP because of the lighting, but I suspect too many people would consider the subject too ordinary to support this at FPC. But regardless, it's excellent. All by -- The Photographer 01:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very lovely - I'm someone who thinks great lighting can make an ordinary subject extraordinary. But I think the yellow WB is overdone. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done King of. I'm a not a good example, however, a good photographer maybe need amazing subjects to make FPs but convert commons ordinary subjects in amazing compositions it make you a great photographer. --The Photographer 02:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per my comment in QIC. I really like this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great example of how light (and a good angle) can transform a subject. The scene is not that ordinary though; how many streets are so clean and well-kept, have such beautiful street lamps or flower arrangements. --cart-Talk 08:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry no. Does not speak to me.--Jebulon (talk) 08:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Jebulon. I think WB is more original on first one. --Mile (talk) 09:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mile Possibly that version could more beautiful for you, however, those colors are not the real ones, my idea is to show the closest thing to reality. --The Photographer 15:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. But at least you could solve halos around pillars, clocks. Something like CA, but on one is very strange, halos without color on right one. --Mile (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see what you tell, maybe you could add some note. --The Photographer 21:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mellow and lovely composition. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mood… 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing of interesting for me... --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice Ezarateesteban 20:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Haloes, and just too busy to really work. Daniel Case (talk) 02:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. --Yann (talk) 07:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The day seems to be pleasant to be outside but that's it. Nothing exceptional for me here. -- Pofka (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although someone could say that there's nothing special about it, I believe it is: the atmosphere and the lighting are very well captured. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice light and mood, but nothing more. Ordinary sceen, not outstandig. --Milseburg (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose shadowshadowshadow... 晴空·和岩讨论页·反互煮 07:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Clear Sky C: Please sign your vote. Thanks. --Hockei (talk) 07:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done[3] 晴空·和岩讨论页·反互煮 07:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Jebulon. --Karelj (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dhyan Buddha Statue, Amaravathi.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2017 at 07:45:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Krishna Chaitanya Velaga - uploaded by Krishna Chaitanya Velaga - nominated by Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · mail) 07:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · mail) 07:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sculture is in the shadown, lask of space, perspective distortion, tilt, chromatic aberration, not centered. --The Photographer 15:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like it but let's see what can be done about the problems noted above. Daniel Case (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Look at the sky 晴空·和岩讨论页·反互煮 02:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 14:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spb 06-2017 img32 Main post office.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2017 at 14:52:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Russia
Info Transparent roof of the Main Post Office (general view) in Saint Petersburg, Russia. All by A.Savin 14:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 14:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing of interesting for me....--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As New York Knicks basketball announcer, Marv Albert used to say: Yesssssssssssss! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition and the geometry of the structure. --Cayambe (talk) 07:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Glass-ic! Daniel Case (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 20:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2016.08.19.-02-Waldsee Viernheim--Saphirauge-Maennchen.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2017 at 17:54:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose abdomen is not in focus. Charles (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! --Alandmanson (talk) 14:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose per Charles - the head, legs and thorax are great, but the abdomen is not and of course the standard for FP odonata pics is very high. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 07:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mørsvikbotn seen from Blåfjell.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2017 at 07:03:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Frankemann - uploaded by Frankemann - nominated by Frankemann -- Frankemann (talk) 07:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Frankemann (talk) 07:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great lighting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per KoH. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per KoH --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per KoH. Could we have a geotag? Daniel Case (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Geotag added. --Frankemann (talk) 07:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support and 7 --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I keep coming back to this picture. I agree with the others: Great combination of light and shadow. And the labeling is wonderful, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 15:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 07:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Spire.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2017 at 22:56:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created & uploaded by User:A,Ocram - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Not a complex picture, but an impressive view, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support True. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ryan Hodnett (talk) 04:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 07:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ... illustrating that you don't need top-notch-state-of-the-art gear to produce great images! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sixflashphoto (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Another album-cover quality image. Daniel Case (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yep! Per Daniel. --cart-Talk 08:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 07:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bilbao - Museo Marítimo - Cadena 03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2017 at 18:45:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What on the dark side for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Famberhorst: The shadows or the clouds? --Basotxerri (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: In my opinion, the shadow of the object.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done A bit brighter now... --Basotxerri (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Bulbous. :) --Peulle (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can imagine how cold it will feel if I put my hands on it. Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Refined image taken.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Special.--Jebulon (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Interesting composition, however, it's difficult to me see the size of this cut object. Beautiful for art photography, however, in the first moment is not obvious that it's a chain. --The Photographer 01:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it's not obvious that it's a chain and regarding the size I'll bet it doesn't fit in your trousers pocket --Basotxerri (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:France 1640 4 Louis d’or (Louis XIII).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2017 at 21:40:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Money & Seals
Info created by National Museum of American History / Jaclyn Nash, uploaded by Godot13, nominated by Yann (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support 4 Louis d’or (Louis XIII of France), 1640. Very rare in this condition. High resolution. -- Yann (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Not nearly as brightly lit as File:France 1643-A Half Louis d'Or.jpg, the other FP of a Louis d'or, but indeed in better condition and a deserving candidate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Louis d'or in half, one and two denominations were issued for about 150 years. This denomination was issued only in 1640, for one year only.-- Godot13 (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 05:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice...and 7 --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support If I vote for it, can I have one please? Charles (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Charles. :) --cart-Talk 08:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Details, details. Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bilit Sabah Spider-at-Last-Frontier-Resort-01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2017 at 11:39:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida
Info A Golden silk orb-weaver(Nephila clavipes) at Bilit, Sabah Malaysia. If you watch this photo in full resolution, please consider, that you will see the spider magnified by a factor 3 and same goes with any alleged blurs.

All by-- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 11:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 11:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough light to capture this spider effectively unfortunately. Charles (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting background. Daniel Case (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting background is the main problem here. -- Pofka (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tiefenellern Ellernbach Schlucht 17RM1588-PSD.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2017 at 07:31:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany
Info Not very powerful at that time of the year but this shows the lack of water in this karstic landscape. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 10:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dark, but that makes it more tranquil. Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good! --Basotxerri (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose The scene is great but those burnt areas are just too distracting. That was IMHO not managed properly, sorry --Poco² 21:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Tried to eliminate the burnt areas and increased the the dark parts a bit.--Ermell (talk) 08:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm afraid that there is nothing you can do about it, they are gone. --Poc o² 10:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support and 7...--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--fedaro (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per Poco. The whites are completely lost, and as a result the edges between the white and non-white parts look unnatural. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose - None of the water looks really like water to me, and the super-bright white water that the opposers are complaining about is kind of weird-looking. I was on the fence, but I guess I feel like for FP, this could probably be done better, though that might require a trip at another time of day or in less direct sunlight. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For this shot I used a 1000 ND filter to achieve an exposure time of one minute, so the water probably doesn't look realistic but this was intended. The side light from the left is good to illuminate the small island but the difference to the rest of the darker upper part is maybe not strong enough. According to the histogram, the highlights have not disappeared, you just can't see them anymore, which probably comes out the same way.--Ermell (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ermell: what you needed here, apart from the ND filter, was a HDR Poc o² 07:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Poc That's what I'm gonna try next but with the expected exposure times it should be completely windless. I also hope that next time there will be more water coming down, my waders are long enough.--Ermell (talk) 08:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tranquil. --cart-Talk 08:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Festivalgelände Wasteland - Wacken Open Air 2016-AL0320.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2017 at 19:29:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Andreas Lawen, Fotandi - uploaded by Andreas Lawen, Fotandi - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too ugly subject for my taste.--Jebulon (talk) 22:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jebulon . Striking and confrontational. Daniel Case (talk) 04:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- ...Therefore good and featurable ?--Jebulon (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jebulon: "Featurable" does not have to mean sweet and light. Daniel Case (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: . I agree. "Ugly", "Striking", "confrontational" does not have to mean "featurable" neither.--Jebulon (talk) 09:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Christian I've seen some great photographs by you, but this photo, no. For many reasons eg. sharpness, edges soft, generally unappealing subject. Sixflashphoto (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel. Well-composed and good quality, too. And if you think this is too ugly to feature, what do you think of expressionism? This is not nearly as ugly as it could be, but it's good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not my taste (the costume and the make-up), but still an interesting portrait. Yann (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry per Jeb --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too shallow DoF for me. As far as the subject, I feel that even if a particular subject is not to one's liking, one should still be able to support a great image of said subject.--Peulle (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cool 'Mad Max' subject but too shallow DoF, sorry. --cart-Talk 08:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Laienrefektorium Kloster Maulbronn.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2017 at 19:55:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created by Harro52 - uploaded by Harro52 - nominated by SDKmac -- SDKmac (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SDKmac (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The pic should be straighten a bit. SDKmac (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support - This is small for a church interior FP, but I really like the lines and three-dimensionality of the space. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are those CA on the windows on the left? -- KTC (talk) 09:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per SDKmac's comment --MB-one (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some faint CA on the column closest to the viewer, and that can and should be fixed, but the rest of the image is outstanding enough to not worry about it. Daniel Case (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A lot of CAs not only at the windows, but also at the columns and at the chairs (especially at the chairs and windows on the left). --Llez (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--fedaro (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great image but CA is too much to ignore at this resolution. Will reconsider after fixing. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old sink and new toothbrush.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2017 at 19:56:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by WClarke -- WClarke 19:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Photograph was created altogether from 8 separate images, though it is only four images wide. Two photographs were focus stacked, one for foreground and one for background, for each of the four segments, which then were combined for the final image. Thought it turned out well and figured it was worth nominating. Thanks. -- WClarke 19:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, nothing is in focus, lost of fine details in all the picture Ezarateesteban 22:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Stacking not there, compo neither. --Mile (talk) 07:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It won't display in full-res for me so I can't tell about the focusing. Daniel Case (talk) 14:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting subject that would have been better without the toothbrush and with improved focus stacking. --cart-Talk 08:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Old Fortress and the Old Town of Corfu - September 2017.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2017 at 20:48:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Greece
Info The Old Fortress and the Old Town of Corfu, Greece. All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 01:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would like to see more at the bottom and less empty sky at the top. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for reducing the sky. Actually, now I don't mind the bottom crop anymore. It seems that the previous composition lacked a central focus so it had an overall disorganized feel to it, but now it's much better. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sky could be a bit better, but overall, this is beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True, more bottom is a whish. --Mile (talk) 08:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, for compositional reasons I decided to take a close-up of the hill and the belltower of Saint Spyridon Church. And since both town and especially hill need some space to breathe, ~~I didn't want to crop the sky any further...~~ --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- ok, ok, I've cropped the image a bit. You're right, less empty sky's better. I hope you all agree, pinging Thennicke, HalfGig talk, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠, Ikan Kekek, Mile --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's fine, although if it were a more interesting sky it would've been better to keep it of course -- Thennicke (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good positioning. -- Pofka (talk) 12:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good now. --Mile (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 14:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although the foreground comes off as almost oversharpened (perhaps different levels of sharpening could have been applied to it and the background? Something to keep in mind for future such images), the image as a whole works. I particularly like the way the steeples and the cross reinforce each other, and the subtle lines leading to the high ground at the center from the sides. Daniel Case (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support but dust spot at the left --A.Savin 21:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 05:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info OK, another shot taken from almost the same spot a few moments later - so this should qualify as an alternative. More of the city, less (but a bit more interesting) sky. Pinging again Thennicke, HalfGig talk, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠, Ikan Kekek, Mile --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose First version looks better for me. That cross is like a cherry on the cake in it. And here it is just too small and the composition is too busy with all those buildings. -- Pofka (talk) 12:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--fedaro (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose, only by comparison with the first version. This is also a very good photo, but I prefer the rhythm of the other photo, the closer view of the fortress, and the ship being visible in the harbor. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, this is not an « alternative » but a different picture.--Jebulon (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This took you longer than usual, Jebulon! ;-)) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Martin Falbisoner: , as I'm more and more disappointed by what happens here in FPC, I tend to be less present... Loss of motivation I think.--Jebulon (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Jebulon: , well, maybe the upcoming Commons Photographers' Conference in 2018 will give us all the urgently needed boost... :-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:The Old Fortress and the Old Town of Corfu - September 2017.jpg

File:2016.07.09.-10-Bossee Felde--Haubentaucher-Paar mit Kueken.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2017 at 14:04:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 14:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 14:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Only one adult is shown in this photo. Charles (talk)

Comment - I was going to say the same thing. Can you specify in your file description whether this is the mother or the father? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... if I'd know that. --Hockei (talk) 08:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that this would be a species in which the male and female birds look the same to us humans, without our ultraviolet light perception. Is that true? I like your new version and will support it, once you change the file description to "Great crested grebe (Podiceps cristatus) parent with chicks", since we see only one parent. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

changed --Hockei (talk) 05:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on the photo you took showing both birds, this is the male. Charles (talk) 07:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If so, that should be specified in the file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - lol, the last chick is too cute...little webbed feet trailing behind. Atsme 📞 02:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Posterization on the birds. Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no posterization at all. I never produce posterization, mainly because I don't use unsharp mask. What you see is dense plumage covered with water. --Hockei (talk) 08:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Agree, this could be much better even on that focal, and you could clone out particles in water. --Mile (talk) 07:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above. I won't clone anything. Neither out nor in, except removing dust spots coming from lens or sensor. --Hockei (talk) 08:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Info I've uploaded a new version with a bit more sharpness and contrast. Comment I don't mind what reasons you find for an oppose. That you say that this picture is better is ridiculous. --Hockei (talk) 08:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak support per cuteness factor --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special. --Karelj (talk) 13:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Hockei (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)}}[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 11:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vevchani springs.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2017 at 12:48:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Silfiriel - uploaded by Silfiriel - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Need sharpening, composition is random --The Photographer 01:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per The Photographer. Daniel Case (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 11:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shield bug (Carpocoris pudicus).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2017 at 16:34:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info About 11mm long. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose - Head is not in focus, which is a reason you very often give for voting against photos at QIC and FPC. So why do you think this one should be an exception? Instead, I think it's possible for you to do better, as you're such a great photographer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

looks good focus to me actually. Charles (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before i judge, what size is it ? --Mile (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Small size, could get it, and on flower was probably moving. Still good. --Mile (talk) 06:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About 11mm long. Charles (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since the photo is bigger than life-size, I have struck my oppose vote and will reconsider. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

weak Oppose Eyes and head not in focus. --Hockei (talk) 07:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This was an oppose vote. It was edited out by mistake, so I've restored it out of courtesy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose Not that sharp, and part of the background is noisy.--Jebulon (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharpness issues. -- Pofka (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Charles (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 11:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:FN1909 4zyl.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2017 at 16:32:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info Engine of the world's first manufactured four-cylinder motorcycle: Belgian "FN", built 1909. created by Palauenc05 (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC) - uploaded by Palauenc05 (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC) - nominated by -- Palauenc05 (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC) -[reply]
Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not wow in thumb size --The Photographer 00:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many cut parts, the wheels, the pedal(?) at the bottom, the casing at the top. An upright format might have been better here to present the gizmo in context. Very little "wow" as it is right now, sorry. --cart-Talk 08:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SupportInteresting and good composition of a detail of this rare motorcycle. It will present the engine and not the wheels and the pedals. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 23:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is an important document, but it's already duly credited for that as a VI. As a candidate for FP, I don't find it an inspiring composition, partly because of the crops on the top and bottom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. 晴空·和岩讨论页·反互煮 05:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 10:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Панорама на Мариово во близина на селото Манастир (2).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2017 at 19:47:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Petrovskyz - uploaded by Petrovskyz - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful scene but too noisy. (I don't think it's fixable, as it will be too unsharp after applying NR.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree with King of Hearts. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unfortunately per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose голем шум --Mile (talk) 08:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 10:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fuchsia 'Twinny'. Bloeiwijze 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2017 at 06:39:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Fuchsia #Family Onagraceae.
Info Fuchsia 'Twinny'. The flowers of this cultivar usually do not fall down, but are twisted at an angle. created by -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The composition is very crowded toward the right and upper right corner and not ideal. However, this is an absolutely brilliant closeup, and it's for that reason that I support a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not wild about the cut-off leaves. Charles (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the colors, leaves notwithstanding. Daniel Case (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel, nice soft bokeh. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ... and seven --Llez (talk) 10:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ... eight is always better than seven. -- Pofka (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful shot. --Laitche (talk) 11:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 23:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 10:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ParquedelaMemoria-0044.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2017 at 12:22:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info all by -- Ezarateesteban 12:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 12:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the concept, but here I think the composition falls short because the poles converge onto a point on the far left side of the image, which draws the viewer's attention away. Also the front of the signs is backlit under midday lighting; it would be better to take photos in the early morning or late afternoon. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per King of Hearts. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special compositionally, and with all the CA and unsharpness I would not even have approved it for QI. Daniel Case (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 50% sky, 40% uninteresting green field and street, pavement, 10% interesting but very small poles. The composition is wrong. -- Pofka (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thanks Ezarateesteban 21:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 11:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tainan Taiwan Prefectural-City-God-Temple-Tainan-01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2017 at 18:27:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info Prefectural City God Temple in Tainan, Taiwan; built in 1669

All by -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lighting is not very good, with too much in shadow. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose left。晴空·和岩讨论页·反互煮 04:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 14:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Agile frog (Rana dalmatina).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2017 at 06:01:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians#Family : Ranidae (True frogs)
Info Agile frog (Rana dalmatina). All by -- Mile (talk) 06:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 06:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm really impressed with what I figure is a larger-than-life closeup! How big is this frog? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek i was wondering if to put size. Now i did, i think its still not in "full format", around 5 cm. --Mile (talk) 08:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ulgy beast, great picture --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely done. Charles (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Harmonious colors and cute little frog with beautiful eyes. --cart-Talk 19:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please add geocoding information. --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They got me on VI, already inputed. --Mile (talk) 09:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 09:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another of the ones where the animal's camouflage enhances the image by showing how it works. Daniel Case (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I already supported it as QIC --Llez (talk) 10:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 14:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Amphibians#Family : Ranidae (True frogs)

File:Fetal cataract.ogv, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2017 at 19:07:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animated
Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Question It needs more explanations for me. Maybe very good for a medical congress, but I'm not sure of what I have to see (and I don't suffer of cataract...)--Jebulon (talk) 10:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you @Jebulon: very much for asking. The videoclip is a ultrasound scan of the fetal head with the fetal nose pointing upwards and with the fetal orbitae which are bony sockets as round black holes in the skull. Inside the hole you can see normally two white circles (black inside) which are the two lensens of the eye. In this scan you can see that the circle on the left is translucent (black inside) while the cicle on the right side is opaque. The opacity of the lens is by definition a cataract, in this case unilateral, which in the fetus could correlate with cromosomal anomalies, intrauterine infections, genetic conditions.--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks to you @Moroder: . Very interesting indeed. I'm afraid the future of this foetus is not very good, if I'm not wrong. Will he be born ? blind ?
    - Comment The cataract was associated to severe fetal growth restriction and an anomaly of the Y cromosome. The pregnancy was terminated. Thanks for the interest --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support after explanations.--Jebulon (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm willing to support once the explanation will be added to the file description. How 'old' is the fetus? --Cayambe (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 20 weeks amenorrhea --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have always said we needed some good medical video. Daniel Case (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 11:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 14:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animated

File:Thurnau-Kirche-P2077186hdr.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2017 at 21:38:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View towards the ceiling of the church in Thurnau

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info all by Ermell -- Ermell (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish the church was more centered, but that's not your fault. Daniel Case (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very stricking view Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was a bit fed up with (church) ceilings, but this one is really excellent and not usual. I love the compo. Sharpness is excellent, and wow is here. IMO, other parts of this church (the organ, the carved COA...) need good photographs too.--Jebulon (talk) 08:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 11:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 14:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Batang Haizishan 2014.09.16 17-17-04.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2017 at 07:45:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created, uploaded & nominated by myself. -- Zhangzhugang (talk) 07:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zhangzhugang (talk) 07:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to understand what I see. Can you please add an appropriate English description on the image page. --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Done --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good picture Ezarateesteban 13:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simple, but very good. I like --A.Savin 17:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sky is a bit too blue for my taste, but nevertheless --Llez (talk) 10:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 13:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support love it - Benh (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 20:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 18:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 10:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 14:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cortinarius (koprenke).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2017 at 21:08:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family : Paxillaceae
Info Cortinarius mushroom. Paxillus involutus mushroom. My shot. -- Mile (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--fedaro (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Impressive mushroom closeup. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simply great. Focus stacked? Sixflashphoto (talk) 03:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --Mile (talk) 07:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support astonishing --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 11:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lovely mix of sharp textures — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Delicious detail and texture. One of the best mushroom pictures I've seen here in a long time, perhaps ever. Daniel Case (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Certainly a good work but it doesn't touch me. The subject is too close. More distance would be better. I don't like the angle and the background. The focus stack is not consistently completed. --Hockei (talk) 06:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 14:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 13:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better than excellent, if I may say. I prefer this without stacking--Jebulon (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Envy... ;-) --cart-Talk 08:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very quality photo and very tasty mashroom. :)--Brateevsky {talk} 19:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info I changed name, it is Paxillus involutus, correct name. Previous was wrong. Fungi#Family_:_Paxillaceae --Mile (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 14:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bodie September 2016 023.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2017 at 21:01:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Automobiles
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support More description is needed, its like from movies and Thompson gun Mafia. I like it, despite it could be more quearter view on car. --Mile (talk) 07:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support awesome colors! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Niiiiiiccccce! Daniel Case (talk) 03:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shadows are a bit harsh but they kinda' work in this setting. --cart-Talk 08:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 18:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 07:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cap Formentor 2015 (Zuschnitt).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2017 at 01:53:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created and uploaded by Der Wolf im Wald - nominated by me -- Thennicke (talk) 01:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 01:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good. I would normally object to the unsharp foreground, but the file size is very big. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is good, but not time of shoting which made this high-noon colors, never so enjoying for my eyes. I would crop some bottom and change temperature to more warm colors. --Mile (talk) 07:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Мирослав Видрак (talk) 08:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find the composition too static and centered, I had cropped left (sorry for the boat) and below, maybe. I disagree with Mile about changing the temperature: the picture is as it is, and one should not deceive the reviewer by manipulation. Anyway, yes, this was not the good moment of the day.--Jebulon (talk) 09:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I personally love the high-noon sun, because blue, white and green are my favourite colours and I enjoy warm weather, but that is entirely a matter of taste. I suppose that what makes a "wow" image differs between us. And symmetrical scenes, such as the hill with the lighthouse on it, nearly always call for a centered composition in my opinion -- Thennicke (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the way the lighthouse is held out so far from the viewer and against the deep blue sea it lights. It makes the point (literally as well as figuratively) of the image. Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 07:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Disa chrysostachya 2016 01 02 4349.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2017 at 14:03:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info Disa chrysostachya, a grassland orchid. All by Alandmanson (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alandmanson (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and abstract. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ryan Hodnett (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose background. Charles (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Flowers in front are sharp and as for the background ... well, for me it's just a nice, visually pleasant abstraction. Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This would be excellent printed on a large canvas for a stylish living room. --cart-Talk 08:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition and format does not work for me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background distracts from the main focused subject. -- Pofka (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Uoaei1. --Karelj (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 07:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ermita de Santo Domingo, Lécera, Zaragoza, España, 2017-01-04, DD 103-105 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2017 at 23:04:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info Sunset view of the hermitage of Saint Domingo, Lécera, province of Zaragoza, Spain. The Baroque hermitage was built over a former iberian settlement in the 14th century. All by me, Poc o² 23:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 23:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely colours. I think you got the processing just right -- Thennicke (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It tilts to the left. --Hockei (talk) 07:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hockei: Done Poc o² 10:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 14:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question What's that weird halo or ghost on the one tree? Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, Ivar: those HDR artifacts are now removed Poc o² 10:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A little soft, it seems, but it helps the overall mood. Daniel Case (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 01:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice sunset glow. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 07:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:High Line August 2017 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2017 at 14:35:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info High line Park in New York at sunset. In the background Pier 57 and the Merchants Refrigerating Company Warehouse (right). Created, uploaded by and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Underexposed, cut, perspective distortion, not main subject and composition unbalanced, not wow --The Photographer 15:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding atmosphere, lighting, and composition. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm sorry, this composition isn't doing it for me. It feels jumbled, and I find the metal temporary barriers and sun rays on the left particularly distracting, along with the motion-blurred couple in the center-right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm sorry, too. The image is not good engough, as it feels jumbled. 晴空·和岩讨论页·反互煮 02:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above --Mile (talk) 07:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Clear Sky. Daniel Case (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. I also fail to find the main subject of this picture. Just a pleasant evening scene. -- Pofka (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 07:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:João Alfredo, Pernambuco, Brazil.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2017 at 15:31:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info All by -- The Photographer 15:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice portrait in context. Just curious, though, why there are unsharp areas of the foreground on the left. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Greenish tint. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the green colors is natural and real --The Photographer 00:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at the clouds. Clouds are supposed to be close to light gray, but if you examine the RGB values the red channel is clearly much lower than the green and blue channels. I've put it in to Photoshop and it looks much better after a +25 magenta adjustment. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Greenish.--Jebulon (talk) 09:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)--Jebulon (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Greenish, but not too much for me. Daniel Case (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To me it looks like the haze in the distance is playing some tricks with the color here. If you set the WB on one of the white flowers to the right of the man, nothing changes and there is this faint green tint. But if you set the WB on the small white building in the distance, there is a slight change for the better. Try it and see the result. --cart-Talk 14:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 09:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative version

Info King of and Jebulon. This version haven`t any alteration and how you can see in raw file (image description), both version haven`t color alteration, only contrast and shadow recuperation. I need change this picture adding +25 magenta to show a irreal image?. --The Photographer 22:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"No color alteration" simply means blindly trusting the camera's auto WB to do the right thing, which isn't always the case. Here it clearly missed the mark. There is no such thing as a photo with zero post-processing; photos are always edited versions of reality, and even in-camera JPEGs are simply versions that were automatically edited by the camera. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

King of It is not a jpg generated by the camera, it's the raw file and you will find it on image description how I told above. --The Photographer 11:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it is. My point is that if even a JPEG with no further edits is a manipulated version of reality, then your photo which you edited from the RAW is also a manipulated version of reality. So you really shouldn't feel any qualms about making the WB more magenta if it feels right. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK. You know. And I understand your point of view. I trust you, and strike my oppose vote. But I don’t support: I ‘’feel’’ it is too green.--Jebulon (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 07:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Palo Alto Baylands January 2013 002.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2017 at 04:12:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition, optimal implemented. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Are the poles a work of art? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 13:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A composition for a school of photography. Not very difficult, but well managed...--Jebulon (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like the cover of a Pink Floyd album I didn't know existed. What are those poles? For nesting birds? Daniel Case (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pretty good but it looks tilted to me.--Peulle (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 18:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support very clear FP to me, nice composition --The Photographer 00:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Special one. --Laitche (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not that sharp (focus off?) but great subject composition. -- Colin (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:PeruRail EMD GT42AC 812 at Km 99.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2017 at 01:48:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info (From David's description): PeruRail's EMD GT42AC 812 and 808 haul a container train from Matarani towards the Las Bambas mine. The train is pictured just before arriving at Km 99, where a temporary facility is used to transfer the containers from rail to trucks for the remainer of the distance.
Info created and uploaded by Kabelleger - nominated by me -- Thennicke (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sky's too blue 晴空·和岩讨论页·反互煮 02:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ For me oversharpened, posterization produced, ~~too high contrast set, maybe more. All in all it doesn't look natural to me~~. --Hockei (talk) 06:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the weak dust spot on the left side is removed I would support the picture.--Ermell (talk) 06:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Ermell, hope dust spot will be removed... --Mile (talk) 07:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not happy with the post-processing on this one either. I'll try to improve that later today. That being said, the picture was taken at around ~~3500~~ 4000 m asl, the sky is much darker at these heights. -- Kabelleger (sorry can't log in at the moment)
- Comment I've uploaded a new version with slightly less contrast and saturation, and without the dust spot in the sky. --Kabelleger (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you worked with curve and haven't controlled very good your result. Now at the ground before the railway (see note) details are lost. The contrast I find better, also it looks more natural now. The posterization is still there. BTW, I wonder, this picture has 25.8 MP and only 6.9 MB. Is it downsampled? --Hockei (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The previous settings used to put more contrast into the bright areas, but - as a result - also made them darker, which, I think, contributed to the slightly unnatural look. I think the details in the area you marked are totally fine, though. (And yes, I changed highlight recovery, contrast and curves). About posterization, I can't see any of that in the area you marked. Posterization typically happens in smooth gradients after strong denoising. Finally, about the file size, I use a fairly high Photoshop JPG quality setting and I think it's good enough to not leave any visible artifacts in this case. The photo is not downsampled in any way. --Kabelleger (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I still think the photo has a certain surreal look to it, but I'm pretty sure that's not due to bad editing. --Kabelleger (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I change to

Neutral. --Hockei (talk) 07:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support already very good as it is! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martin --A.Savin 14:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good.--Ermell (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer 00:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 18:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 07:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Wooden head.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2017 at 03:34:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 13:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A crocodile fossil, as seen by TC.--Jebulon (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting subject, nice find! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Who is the artist? --Laitche (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mother Nature! ;) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified support Lovely texture but I think it could be a stronger image with the unsharp top and bottom cropped. Daniel Case (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Frozen ground in Stroplsjødalen valley in Dovrefjell National Park, Norway.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2017 at 10:18:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Frankemann - uploaded by Frankemann - nominated by Frankemann -- Frankemann (talk) 10:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Frankemann (talk) 10:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This isn't a bad image but on a featured picture I hope to see something more special and this is overall too dark. Maybe with some interesting lighting this would be different but as it is, something is missing, sorry. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support - Good picture of desolation, with sharp rimy plants and cracked ice in the foreground. I'm thinking the light looks realistic for that latitude, time of day and time of year. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ikan Kekek have some points, on this latitude, time of the day and year, it is not much daylight, in addition it was overcast and no sun. It was a really strange ambient. I have made a new verson of the picture, so if a brighter version is wanted, it can be testet. Best regards --Frankemann (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've experienced mostly cloudy days like this before many times. There is a lot of potential for the sun to peek out of the clouds and reveal the most amazing scene ever, but alas very often this is the most color you'll see. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing extra, no wow. --Karelj (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Freemasons' Hall, London 2017-09-17-2a.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2017 at 20:05:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#United_Kingdom
Info Another photo from Freemasons' Hall taken during Open House weekend. This is of the Art Deco ceiling in the third vestibule outside the Grand Temple. The four blue panels represent heaven and the rose in each corner reflects the connection between England and Freemasonry. You can see another view of the ceiling and lamp here. The image is an HDR from five exposures. All by me -- Colin (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the picture and the good documentation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not as good as the previous from the same place, especially due to the non centered disturbing lantern. + this ceiling is not extraordinary IMO. --Jebulon (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 05:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jebulon --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The lamp bugs me too but I guess there was nothing you could have done about that. On the other hand, it helps when looking at the pic since it is so perfect otherwise that you could think it was a drawing. --cart-Talk 08:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cart. I used the magnification feature of the camera to attempt to align the image centre with the centre of the lamp/star. It is hard to ensure the camera is absolutely level when pointing straight up. The on-screen electronic level on my camera does not work at all in this position, so I am forced to judge by eye and also by checking the alignment of the straight lines in the image. I used Lightroom's guided adjustment feature to refine the verticals and horizontals to true. You can see from this picture that the lamp is suspended from four chains and is itself very deep. It is always possible the lamp may not be itself perfectly vertical or perfectly centred, and even a slight tilt (or camera misalignment) on such a tall lamp will be noticeable when viewed directly below. It is annoying, for such a geometric image. -- Colin (talk) 09:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more prone to think that misaligned light fixtures are due to the resident electrician than your camera skills. :-) --cart-Talk 09:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice of you to say, but I'm pretty sure I contributed to the error. If anyone knows of a way to ensure the camera is level, pointing up, I'd like to know. I wondered about taking a small spirit level and resting it on the front filter of the lens. Would get me some odd looks I'm sure. That wouldn't work for my Samyang fisheye, though, which has a bulbous lens and a curved permanently attached lens hood. I'm going to try one of those Arca Swiss clamps that have little levels on them, but don't know if (a) those levels are accurate enough and (b) I can fix the camera plate into them precisely enough for those levels to be relevant. The level on my phone camera is more sensitive (and useful in all orientations) than the one in my camera :-(. -- Colin (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever level you choose, you will have to sight it just like you do with a rifle scope. No tool is perfect fresh from the store. --cart-Talk 12:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that perfect levelling with camera pointing upward can be achieved with a NN (I believe u own one). - Benh (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per cart, I actually like how the light warms up the middle of an otherwise cool picture. Daniel Case (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Apart from the great colours, optimal sharpness and interesting composition, I especially like the way the lamp was captured.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 07:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Multi-fruits summer pie, homemade by Mrs Jebulon.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2017 at 20:10:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/objects
Info work of art created by Mrs.Jebulon - rest by me -- Jebulon (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A multi-fruits summer pie, homemade by Mrs.Jebulon. Too late for WLM2017, but could have been a serious candidate for the victory: this is a true monument.-- Jebulon (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WB is off Poc o² 20:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Need WB (too yellow) , the background make the subject like a planet. --The Photographer 20:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, the white balance is perfect.--Jebulon (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support While looking at it, you literally eat it. --Basotxerri (talk) 07:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Congrats to Mr. and Mrs. Jebulon! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support We don't see many of these on FPC. :) (sings) fruity, fruity, fruuuity...--Peulle (talk) 18:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I didn't understand this nomination until I looked at it in full view. Well done Mr. and Mrs. Jebulon! Sixflashphoto (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is interesting --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The blown highlights are very inelegant filled with light grey color.--Ermell (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good, and I'm sure it was delicious. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support a bit per Ermell but also since I think this would have looked much better on a more "organic" background like a wrinkled checkered tablecloth or an old wooden table. Looks very tasty though and I don't doubt the colors. --cart-Talk 08:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- +1, or like this. Unfortunately, the tart was put on an uncertain kitchen table older than me, with undefinite color (see original version). I had to eliminate the plate too. And as you can imagine, I had to work quickly before the disappearance of the "thing", from oven to stomachs... Advantage: nothing disturbing in background, I already used this technique.--Jebulon (talk) 09:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have to do like the photographers who take photos for modern cookbooks. They collect different planks and pieces of "texture" at flea markets so they have a small "library" of interesting flat backgrounds for their photos. ;) I'm sure the oven to stomachs time was very short. :) (My local food store sends me this free magazine every month. It always contains good ideas for food photos. :)) --cart-Talk 09:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I really doubt some restaurant would put this kind of shot on Menu. Food shots are very special, they need something much more than (your words) Unfortunately, the tart was put on an uncertain kitchen table older than me, with undefinite color (see original version). I had to eliminate the plate too. And as you can imagine, I had to work quickly before the disappearance of the "thing... Whats is wrong here, probaly everything except (maybe) projection. Its staged shot, needs lot of time and preparation. --Mile (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a picture for a menu, and I disagree about the idea that any good picture needs lot of time and preparation, even if in this case, the post-processing (masking) took some time, indeed. I think that probably everything is wrong in your (a bit patronizing) review. Thanks.--Jebulon (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jebulon please, I invite you to not take it personally, please be polite to the people who have dedicated their time to make a constructive criticism. --The Photographer 15:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never was "unpolite". I think reviewers should be polite to the people who have dedicated their time to make and share a picture in "Commons". the quote "Whats is wrong here, probaly everything except (maybe) projection" is not really polite. The review was not about the picture, but a commentary about what I have given as explanations. Therefore I don't feel it as a "constructive criticism" as it should be. Thanks.--Jebulon (talk) 09:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Measured support Perhaps the image's perceived WB problems came from the original background. But the detail, particularly on the wet parts, is excellent and watching it slowly clarify at full-res was appetizing even though I'm not a big fruit-pie eater. Daniel Case (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neither the black background nor the top view work for me. Food has to be presented on a nice plate and in a nice surrounding. --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for opinion. In my mind, this picture is not only "food". I did not want to make a picture for a menu...--Jebulon (talk) 09:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not bad, but not particularly WOW. Seems overprocessed too: the flashlight reflections are unnaturally dark (perhaps too much brightening of highlights) Sorry --A.Savin 17:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background -- Ryan Hodnett (talk) 05:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Difficult one. As an example of "food photography" it doesn't work for all the reasons given by the opposers. See Plate to Pixel: Digital Food Photography & Styling for a decent book on this kind of thing, which as Cart notes does indeed call for styling the context with rustic tables, cloths and crockery. And natural daylight works best apparently. But Jebulon offered this as a "work of art". I'm not that keen on cutting objects out onto a black/white/transparent background vs achieving that at exposure time with controlled lighting. It rarely looks convincing. The round subject does suit a clock-face viewpoint here. There's something odd about the lighting, though. In many of the highlights is a patch of grey. I don't know if this is some post-processing of burnt highlights gone wrong, or an unfortunate reflection of the wall/ceiling. I think the white-balance is also wrong, and a little green. Looking at the original version, I see the plate is off white and correcting the white-balance using the plate makes the colours look a bit better. -- Colin (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Black background doesn't work for me here, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 07:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 07:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Petrozavodsk 06-2017 img35 Railway station.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2017 at 14:53:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Russia
Info Evening aerial photo of Petrozavodsk (Karelia, Russia) In the foreground: Petrozavodsk Railway Station, background: Lake Onega. All by A.Savin 14:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 14:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pleasant atmosphere. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is the best of Featured? Do a pictures with a drone of a Panorama with nothing? (also distort!) Incredible.... --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am confused. The bottom of the picture shows only part of a railway station. What is the yellow building with the dome in the centre? If this is the main building of the station, why is it not in line with the tracks?--Christof46 (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The yellow building is the railway station --A.Savin 23:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Softness, noise, and crop. Daniel Case (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I like it. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Отличное фото Железнодорожного вокзала и площади рядом с ним (не знаю как называется)! Можно использовать даже как визитную карточку города. --Brateevsky {talk} 20:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't look very exceptional, except from the fact that it was taken from a drone. The light is quite unpleasant and the quality is probably way below average (LOOK how noisy everything is, especially the asphalt around the train station). -- Pofka (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Below average of FPC, or below average of Commons? --A.Savin 21:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 07:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tella - Dolmen de Tella 06.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2017 at 18:43:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Spain
Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I like the formation and the view, but the dull, hazy light is sub-optimal. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't find light dull at all; if anything, the grey background helps the foreground stand out. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- +1.--Jebulon (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 05:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King. Daniel Case (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HalfGig talk 01:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image!--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 07:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kopenhagen (DK), Runder Turm -- 2017 -- 1633.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2017 at 05:12:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created & uploaded by Dietmar Rabich - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - How about another view looking straight up to the top of a tower? The only weakness I can see in this photo is that it gets less sharp as you look higher, but that's actually what happens in real life. This is a type of view that is commonly seen, perhaps especially but certainly not only by children (though definitely not always with structures this striking), and I don't think it's represented enough at FPC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp, and nothing special. Nice place anyway, did you visit inside ?--Jebulon (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've taken some pictures from the top. --XRay ^talk 15:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nice erection. ;) But is it just me, or is there a slight tilt?--Peulle (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check this. Thank you. --XRay ^talk 19:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done You're right. It's fixed now. And I've made some minor improvements. --XRay ^talk 04:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Peulle (talk) 13:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Most of your edits improved the picture, but I'm curious why you decreased the brightness. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And now it's brighter again. --XRay ^talk 05:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks to Ikan Kekek for nominating my photograph. --XRay ^talk 18:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I enjoy it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Simple appreciation of the architectural form. It is hard, in a busy city, to remove clutter. -- Colin (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mallnitz Stappitzer See Ost 05.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2017 at 10:51:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria
Info Lake Stappitz in the Seebach Valley near Mallnitz, High Tauern National Park, Carinthia, Austria. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not as sharp as maybe it could be, but it's too stunning a scene for me to care. Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 18:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, exactly per Daniel. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm wondering if the mountains could be dehazed a bit. Stunning anyway! --Basotxerri (talk) 08:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 10:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 23:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 08:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --B dash (talk) 10:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:12-01-03-akt-lowkey-by-RalfR-06.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2017 at 23:33:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info all by -- Ralf Roleček 23:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ralf Roleček 23:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I understand that low-key photography is a technique, but I think it's not being applied effectively in this case. What's the point in photographing a nude woman and including her face, if you can't see half of it because it's too dark? I think the unintentional effect is to objectify the woman more, because we can see her breasts well but can't see much of her face and hair at all. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very artful, I will support if the noted bugs are fixed. This kind of photography usually works better with a woman than a man because of more curves and long hair. Looks like from a croquis session. --cart-Talk 08:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Different, fresh and interesting art work --The Photographer 01:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 10:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Banding, maybe in BW would be better. --Mile (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 16:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The light does not highlight the shape of the breasts but deform its. Maybe it lacks another light source. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[[[reply]
Oppose Per other opposers - other low-key portraits that we've promoted here have been better. -- Thennicke (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We have better low-key portraits. The lighting here is inconsistent (e.g. some hair lit, some not). Rim lighting ineffective. Too much of the body/head is just dark. And posterisation issues with the background. Very low EV. -- Colin (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per opposers. --B dash (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:2009K4488 - Почаїв (Тернопільський).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2017 at 15:19:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by Мирослав Видрак - uploaded by Carschten - nominated by Мирослав Видрак -- Мирослав Видрак (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Мирослав Видрак (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too unsharp, especially on domes. Daniel Case (talk) 04:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. I also find the crop on the lower left problematic, though I don't know what alternatives you had. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. 晴空·和岩讨论页·反互煮 05:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bergtocht van Alp Farur (1940 meter) via Stelli (2383 meter) naar Gürgaletsch (2560 meter) 03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2017 at 04:34:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural # Natural phenomena.
Info After a descent of Gürgaletsch (2560 meters) in dense fog at the Stelli pass. During a break on the pass the clouds broke and some mountain peaks (left) were visible. all by -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All I really see is clouds with some portions of mountains. Daniel Case (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:What can we see from this picture? clouds, clouds, clouds, clouds, clouds, clouds and clouds.-- 晴空·和岩讨论页·反互煮 11:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Apart from clouds, I can see nothing.--B dash (talk) 10:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the comment.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 11:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frauenkirche Munich Tower WLM 2015.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2017 at 15:59:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings or Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
I withdraw my nomination all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK guys, if this one is a FP (and why not ?), my candidate should be a FP too... Frauenkirche, south tower, Munich, Germany.-- Jebulon (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a nice enough image, but for me the light is too flat to cause any wow factor.--Peulle (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's architecturally interesting enough to survive the flat light. Daniel Case (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Is it leaning to the left on the way up? It looks that way to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It does not - I'm sure Jebulon will take care of that issue. I'll support out of sheer Munich bias. Ha. (And because it's a well taken, architecturally interesting image, of course...) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid the other one is symmetrical, with the centre aligned centrally, whereas this is off-centre and the centre of the building does indeed drift over to the left as you ascend. The colours on the other photo are happy but this one lacks the punchy contrast. The vapour trail on the right is a little distracting, and there is a colour moire on the lower window. Sorry but this doesn't wow me to FP. -- Colin (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I might as well oppose, because although the leaning should be addressed, I really agree with Peulle and Colin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- - I withdraw my nomination Qui veut noyer son chien l’accuse de la rage...--Jebulon (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)in München: Wenn man jemand hängen will, findet man auch den Strick.[reply]
    - Leider --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 11:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kastellet citadel on Kastellholmen Stockholm 2016 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2017 at 04:42:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created & uploaded by User:Julian Herzog - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think this is a fantastic picture: A picturesque scene shot during a snowfall, with wonderful light and shadow. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing atmosphere. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, thank you for the nomination. — Julian H.^✈ 06:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My pleasure! I immediately said "WOW!" out loud when seeing the photo. It's really special. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Of course! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good.--Ermell (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good light and a perfect capture of a snowfall. --cart-Talk 08:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all the praise above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 13:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support In my opinion, the prettiest nomination we've seen here for quite some time -- Thennicke (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Falling snow perfectly excuses the blown area in the clouds. Daniel Case (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: I don't think it's actually blown; nothing is at 255, and lowering exposure 1 stop in Photoshop reveals shape of the clouds very clearly. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 22:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excelent! Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --B dash (talk) 10:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Schloss Tirol gegen Mendel im Herbst.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2017 at 19:36:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info created by ChrisCrea - uploaded by ChrisCrea - nominated by ChrisCrea -- ChrisCrea (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChrisCrea (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. Beautiful lighting and colors, but the lower left and lower right corners are just too unsharp (f/8 might give you better sharpness). Also, a rule of thirds crop would be better, and I can see it both ways: if you put the castle on the left, the benefit is that it leaves a lot of space on the right, allowing the viewer to imagine the rays of the sun coming down from the upper right, while if you put the castle on the right, you can show more of the town below. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose While I am not as bothered by the composition as I like the way the castle divides the landscape behind it, and I love the colors and lighting, King is right that it is way too unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose.per Daniel Case.-- 晴空·和岩讨论页·反互煮 11:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the comments. I had no nomination experience or idea what might be acceptable or not. I just liked this image without looking very carefully into details. I do not like third crops in this case. I taught maybe the HDR processing of the 3 originals did cause the unsharp areas but it is also on the single images, maybe also caused by wind? Sad. Hope to eventually recreate a similar image, there is only a short timeframe with this leaf colors. --

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 11:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vadimrazumov copter - Pereslegino.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2017 at 14:13:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Russia
Info created by Usadboved - uploaded by Usadboved - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Watermark, low resolution, photographer(s) are visible --A.Savin 17:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 11:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wien Deutschordenskirche Flügelaltar 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2017 at 04:04:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Austria
Info Flamish winged triptych at the Church of the Teutonic Order in Vienna, Austria. Panel paintings and woodcarvings by anonymous masters; polychromy of the woodcarvings by Jan van Wavere, Mechelen, signed 1520. This altarpiece was originally made for St. Mary's Church, Gdańsk, and came to Vienna in 1864. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice triptych, deserving a better sharpness for a static object IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question @Jebulon: You mean this should be sharper?! --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes.--Jebulon (talk) 08:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp enough IMO.--Ermell (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharpness is OK IMO --Llez (talk) 10:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --B dash (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Shusha 2010 mosque.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2017 at 07:26:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Architecture
Info created and uploaded by KennyOMG - nominated by me -- Thennicke (talk) 07:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 07:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A nice idea with the lines, but unfortunately it's a little cluttered and seems slightly overexposed. Daniel Case (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for the nom but I never considered this anything special. -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is a good photo, but it's not quite an FP to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination well I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder, and I like abandoned buildings -- Thennicke (talk) 09:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 11:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ohrid 2.1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2017 at 11:11:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Zlatkobozinovski - uploaded by Zlatkobozinovski - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice use of the light but too busy for FP for me, plus CA. Daniel Case (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel, sorry. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 11:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Турно скијање 2015.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2017 at 10:58:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created by Шпиц - uploaded by Шпиц - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All persons from the back, and nothing else that wows me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Uoaei. --Cayambe (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Probably a QI, but not an FP, per Uoaei1. Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 11:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Kirchspiel, VW 1303 -- 2017 -- 2279.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2017 at 05:31:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Automobiles
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 05:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 05:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think a crop would improve the picture. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 05:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your proposal. Sorry, I wouldn't crop the image. I like the empty room at the left and the car at 2:1. --XRay ^talk 05:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support A happy little bug out and about with good lead room. --cart-Talk 08:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically fine but the direction of light takes away the wow for me.--Peulle (talk) 13:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the light is coming from just the right direction. @Peulle: What would you rather have done? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per KoH. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --B dash (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing appealing for me.--Jebulon (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fuente Wittelsbacher, Plaza Lenbach, Múnich, Alemania, 2017-07-07, DD 11-14 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2017 at 08:49:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info View during the blue-hour of the monumental Wittelsbacher fountain in the center of Munich, in Bavaria, Germany. The sculpture on the right shows a man sits astride a horse and hurls a rock, representing water's destructive power. Built between 1893 and 1895, the design follows drawings of the sculptor Adolf von Hildebrand. In the back there is a woman seated on a bull, holding a bowl, and depicts the healing qualities of water. Poc o² 08:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 08:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added some notes. --Ivar (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I fixed them, Ivar :) Poc o² 17:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neutral Tree is disturbing Excellent now, well done! --The Photographer 01:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A harsh vote, I believe, The Photographer. I can easily remove the tree, but just if others ask for that. To me it isn't really distracting Poc o² 16:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I changed my vote to neutral and I will support it if the tree is removed --The Photographer 19:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, The Photographer, I

removed it. Would be happy to get that seventh support :) Poc o² 20:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support a refreshingly original take on this familiar subject - great job, Diego --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 18:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --B dash (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Kopenhagen (DK), Bahnhof -- 2017 -- 1672 (bw).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2017 at 05:23:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Denmark
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 05:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 05:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very good lines, symmetry, use of B&W and all, but too me it looks too much like a "early Monday morning depression" when you don't want to take the train to work (figuratively speaking, about the mood). --cart-Talk 08:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support cart-Talk, cart, cart... we all take our trains to work happily and joyfully, each and every Monday...! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, I was talking about the mood in the photo not necessarily myself. Now clarified. You know me and my 'artsy-fartsy' descriptions... ;) --cart-Talk 10:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not centered, need verticals fix, top is cut --The Photographer 01:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I get the feeling it was a choice between centering the staircase or centering the canopy, and I would also have gone with the former. Daniel Case (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not centered as previously mentioned. Roof of the station shows this perfectly. EDIT: From oppose to neutral - still not exceptional picture for me. Without B&W effect it would look too ordinary. -- Pofka (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Pofka: Not every platform is strate. This platform (and the whole railway station) is curved to the left at this position. So you can't center the photograph with both, stairs and platform. Please have a look again. I can't follow your arguments. --XRay ^talk 04:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Info The stairs are centered as possible, but the platform itself is curved to the left. The whole railway station is curved, first to the left, later to the right, like a "S". --XRay ^talk 04:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, no wow. --Karelj (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --B dash (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special for me.--Jebulon (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2013.05.18.-03-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim-Vierfleck-Maennchen-1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2017 at 16:45:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Libellulidae (Skimmers)
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support very very nice! Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 22:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. Charles (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --B dash (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 08:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2015I8527 - Луцьк.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2017 at 14:47:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info created by Мирослав Видрак - uploaded by Мирослав Видрак - nominated by Мирослав Видрак (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Мирослав Видрак (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it, at least something different. With lower noise would be even better. --Mile (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice subject but heavy noise and not EXIF data present --The Photographer 01:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Mile. --Yann (talk) 09:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Mile. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per The Photographer. Daniel Case (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quality ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality issues. -- Pofka (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, too much noise. And EXIF data missing. --XRay ^talk 18:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moosburg Mitterteich Hütte zur Abflussregulierung 02102017 1273.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2017 at 02:38:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very pleasing composition and colors. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The lines between the trees and grass in the distance and the shadows in the distance all have very visible borders with clear thicknesses. Do you know why? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Sorry, but I do not know the reason. I will keep my eyes open anyway. Perhaps I will find out. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I notice the NR used is a bit high, maybe that could be a factor? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done The issue was not the NR but the luminescence of the green color. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well done!--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 06:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 07:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 12:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 13:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Party-poop oppose A nice idea but unfortunately for me those leaves in front get in the way. Daniel Case (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Also slightly distracted by these leaves, however I think it is good enough anyway. -- Pofka (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 18:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 23:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 20:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --B dash (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 08:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Winter-Regnitz-Baum-PC310023-PSD.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2017 at 17:31:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany
Info created - uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Winter is coming... and I don't mind it one bit if it's as beautiful as this! --cart-Talk 18:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful, and a nice counterpart to File:Regnitz-Baum-1012073.jpg, taken almost exactly a year earlier. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's wonderful. --Laitche (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 23:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support 晴空·和岩讨论页·反互煮 04:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support -- Ryan Hodnett (talk) 05:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magically. --Hockei (talk) 06:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you very much for the nomination Christian.--Ermell (talk) 07:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Winter is coming ... --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 10:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful.--Peulle (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good shot. --Mile (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Support --fedaro (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC) double vote Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 05:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --fedaro (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love it! $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 05:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 16:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice. --B dash (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Wonderful in every respect, except that I feel uneasy looking at this picture because you've centered an assymetrical subject which almost looks like it's going to fall. Perhaps a rule of thirds composition or something might've worked better. It's not bad though. -- Thennicke (talk) 09:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 27 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 05:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Plan de Paris vers 1550 color.jpg, delisted not replaced[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2017 at 07:18:26

New file

Info New file is far better. See also: Original nomination and Old delist nomination
Delist and replace -- Paris 16 (talk) 07:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC) Delist per Jebulon! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Yann (talk) 09:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and not replace. Both are not original, but a 1980's copy. They suffer of a two strong stitching errors which does not appear on the original of course. Please look at the two escucheons (King of France and Paris), and look carefully !! None can be a FP in my opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Jebulon. Daniel Case (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Jebulon.--Peulle (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Jebulon. -- Pofka (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Jebulon.--Cayambe (talk) 07:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --B dash (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 10 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. cart-Talk 08:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Снег на Шар Планина.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2017 at 12:50:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Ice
Info all by me. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, this just isn't wowing me. The patterns seem a bit haphazard. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow here either, sorry. I too go around photographing snow surfaces when I can but I don't consider any of them as FPs since it's hard to get beyond the ordinary with that kind of motif. --cart-Talk 09:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 10:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:CiudadDelCarmenSeawall2017.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2017 at 03:11:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Cvmontuy - uploaded by Cvmontuy - nominated by User:Cvmontuy -- Cvmontuy (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cvmontuy (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose colours are very dull and composition is unbalanced. I have to disagree with Johann here -- Thennicke (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This photo caught my eye as soon as I saw it, very nice colours and composition. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Thennicke and not eye-catching enough for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see what you were thinking, but unfortunately the combination of three different textures makes it work against itself. Daniel Case (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per supporters, in complete opposition with opposers.--Jebulon (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing fascinating.--Ermell (talk) 07:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I find the stones oppressive, since they're so much in my face as a viewer. If you backed up and had more sky above them, I might like the photo more. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unbalanced composition as already mentioned. -- Pofka (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Cvmontuy (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 10:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aesculapian snake (Zamenis longissimus).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2017 at 17:56:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Order : Squamata (Lizards and snakes)
Info ~~Wild snake Aesculapian (Zamenis longissimus)~~ , size around 40-45 cm. With clearly visible forked tongue (my intention, because i see it very rare on shots). Good macro, not tele. --Mile (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info I aksed Herpetological society before nominating, late reply came today, its other sorte, the name is already changed, its Common slowworm (Anguis fragilis). --Mile (talk) 12:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent for Wild photography --The Photographer 18:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I find the lower right corner a bit disturbing, but if it were cropped out, you'd crop out a lot of the snake. Excellent closeup of the snake's head. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yikes! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Anyway, I would crop it a bit on the right side and if possible give more room on the left (head) side. --Hockei (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Then i would loose snake eye in third position, i am even out a bit... and i like it more in panoramic snake-wide--Mile (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Support per Martin. ;) --cart-Talk 22:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would crop a bit, but it's very nice as is. Charles (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support scary. --B dash (talk) 10:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 09:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles#Order : Squamata (Lizards and snakes)

File:Champlain Quebec city.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2017 at 17:17:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Canada
Info All by -- The Photographer 17:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very colorful, good composition, nice arrangement of lights. Note that the upper part is a bit noisy especially given the 6 MP resolution. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

King of It was a night shoot without tripod because of the very small location, IMHO I can't remove the light compensation noise without remove the brick details and transform it in a plane wall. I preffer let the noise because it has more information --The Photographer 22:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Some ghosts in that doorway nearest the camera, but they seem to have been cleaned up as well as they could be. Daniel Case (talk) 05:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent mood --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Option for crop - see note ? --Mile (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Mile thanks for your sujestion, I applied it because IMHO it improve the image composition. Daniel Case I also removed the ghost, thanks too for your remark --The Photographer 16:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Usually I don't vote in my nominations, however, this angle an image is unique, nobody take in the past the same image because the hard conditions to take this picture angle without tripod. I think that this image capture the environment in a common street of Québec downtown --The Photographer 20:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - There is a little noise in places, as has been discussed above, but I think it's acceptable for a night picture, and you've really captured the feel of a quiet street in the old city at night. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It got me in the end. :) --cart-Talk 22:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Anyway, i would crop to begining of sidewalk, but better than before.--Mile (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --B dash (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Church of Saint Donatus, Zadar - September 2017.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2017 at 10:25:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Croatia
Info The Church of St. Donatus and the belltower of Zadar Cathedral, Zadar, Croatia. I like this image for the stark contrast between deep blue sky and bright facades on the one side as well as the hint of chiaroscuro created by the well lit parts of the buildings vs. the ones in the shade on the other, the latter leading to a very three dimensional impression. All by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 14:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Reminds me somewhat of De Chirico. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan (It could perhaps have been sharpened a little less, though). Daniel Case (talk) 03:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 04:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --B dash (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 07:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Piz Palü main summit Panorama beschriftet.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2017 at 23:06:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Capricorn4049 -- Capricorn4049 (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Capricorn4049 (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A lot of work and a great panorama, but there is a completely unsharp section (Piz Mezdi, Piz Mandra) --Llez (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a good day for an annotated panorama when many identified peaks are obscured. Charles (talk) 11:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Llez; also, frankly, this is trying to do too much. A VI for sure but I think it is more annotated than necessary to be effective. Daniel Case (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Llez and Daniel. Good and instructiv, but not perfect. There is an very unsharp section between Ringelspitz and Brisi. Further more I see a stitching error right of Lodner. For me labels a bit too dominant. By the way: The 360°-template isn´t working here. --Milseburg (talk) 11:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Heavy noise --The Photographer 00:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Probably a very good document, but useless in most parts, per Charles.--Jebulon (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --B dash (talk) 10:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 07:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:ST battle panorama IMG 4238-4289-49 img-10K.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2017 at 14:09:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info created by Angstroem - uploaded by Angstroem - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very interesting shot, but problems with exposure in sky - anoted. --Mile (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the bands noted by Mile (obvious even at thumb) and the border at the bottom. Daniel Case (talk) 05:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These buildings certainly deserve a feature... but per the issues noted above. --Cayambe (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 07:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Solis Viaduct, Schinschlucht and Solis dam, aerial video.webm, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2017 at 23:15:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info created, uploaded and nominated by me -- Capricorn4049 (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info Please look at the video in full resolution -- Capricorn4049 (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Capricorn4049 (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Schin gorge looks amazing. -- Pofka (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support You had me with that drop into the gorge ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Professional quality to my eyes and per Daniel. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --B dash (talk) 10:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fabelfroh (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 07:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Saint Mark's Campanile and Palazzo Ducale, Venice, September 2017.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2017 at 06:41:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Italy
Info You can see the Zecca, Biblioteca Marciana, Saint Mark's Campanile, Palazzo Ducale, and Prigioni Nuove, Venice. I took this image onboard a vaporetto. What I especially like about it is the pleasant lighting. All by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gorgeous. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ - Yes, really pretty. Great reflections. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 13:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe you just could clone each tourist out ? ;)--Jebulon (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If he did that, it would no longer be a "tourist picture". :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry to spoil. But I don't see what is special about that one. The buildings are skewed (backward on the left side), the noon lighting is harsh, it's full of tourists and full size quality is soso to say the least. - Benh (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks, Benh, for your remarks. Well, the lighting is a matter of taste I guess - I don't find it particularly harsh. The masses of tourists can't be helped in Venice. Never. Unfortunately. So we better regard them as a feature. ;-) More seriously, I don't think that the buildings are skewed... It's not that St. Mark's Square would follow a truly perpendicular pattern. Plus: All facades there are to some degree slanting. They're (truly) old and their base is not exactly made of concrete blocks. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah sorry but I don't agree with the tourist argument... because I went there and took many tourist-free pictures (and not all of them are public on my Flickr stream). It's only a matter of getting up a little bit earlier. As a side benefit, you get a softer better lighting IMO (but yes one could argue this is a matter of tastes). As for the skewing, I still believe it's there. In my view, you should have pointed ur camera slightly to the right. But this is easy fix. - Benh (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose EDIT: alternative version is better. -- Pofka (talk) 20:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The lighting is actually not bad, surprisingly, for a midday shot. I think it's because there are no significant shadows on the facades which can ruin the photo. However, I don't think a relatively easy-to-take shot with 12 MP which isn't tack-sharp can quite be considered the best of what we have to offer. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Benh, better light, less tourists - wake up more early. --Mile (talk) 08:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Guys, do you honestly believe I'm not aware of the benefits that early morning light offers to the eager photographer?! In fact I started roaming this beautiful city as soon as my ship finally finished mooring. Weather wasn't the best during most of the day. Luckily some minor clouds helped create pleasant midday lighting when the haze finally started to disappear. I was lucky to find myself on a vaporetto passing St. Mark's Square when this scene presented itself to me - and took a couple of pictures while standing in the open section of a quickly und rather rockingly moving boat. I took hundreds of pictures that day - and later discarded most of them. I still believe that this nom does in fact contribute to our collection of better images of Venice. Astonishingly there aren't that many FPs from this picturesque place yet (Wolfgang's and Ben's photos, e.g., are awesome of course!). --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh, although the tourists don't bother me as they are inevitable. However, this just doesn't distinguish itself from many other pictures of this scene (the cropped building doesn't help). Daniel Case (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel.--Peulle (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. But I really like the light! -- Thennicke (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support for my this version also is ok --Pudelek (talk) 11:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh. --Karelj (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I now Oppose in favor of the alternative. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info cropped as requested above - I've removed the Prigioni Nuove. This also improves the general composition, imo, as it positions the campanile exactly according to the rule of thirds. Pinging (let's hope I don't forget anybody) Johann Jaritz, Ikan Kekek, cart-Talk, Cayambe, Jebulon, George Chernilevsky ^talk, Benh, Pofka (talk), King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠, Mile, Palauenc05, Daniel Case, fedaro, Peulle, Thennicke.
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Saw it, and still, i miss tonality, better colors, morning or late evening ones. --Mile (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I prefer this version. The crop on the right improves the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok too. --cart-Talk 08:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still Neutral - I think's it's been oversharpened at too high a radius to overcompensate for the slight lack of natural sharpness. I probably wouldn't be this picky on a typical FP nom, but if I've seen a composition before from multiple photographers, I'd demand either greater artistic value (clouds, lighting, etc.) or more megapixels. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow's there and EV's there --A.Savin 15:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Both.--Jebulon (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Both. --B dash (talk) 10:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This version is clearly better. -- Pofka (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 02:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 13:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Saint Mark's Campanile and Palazzo Ducale, Venice, September 2017 -2.jpg

File:2013.06.07.-14-Karlsternweiher im Kaefertaler Wald-Mannheim-Grosse Moosjungfer-Maennchen.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2017 at 12:38:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Libellulidae (Skimmers)
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This looks like an outstandingly clear picture of a dragonfly, but please explain what it is that looks like a white border on most of its abdomen (I'm sure the explanation is logical, but it may help you to give it). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You surely mean the white hair I think. --Hockei (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I guess the hair is thicker further back on the abdomen.

Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Cayambe (talk) 08:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 22:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --B dash (talk) 10:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 02:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 16:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 21:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Brennhausen-Wasserburg-8287390.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2017 at 20:44:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Moated castle Brennhausen in Upper Franconia

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info all by Ermell -- Ermell (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could be a bit brighter. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done I agree--Ermell (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 05:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful and very good. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 09:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support And well processed, as your images seem to often be -- Thennicke (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good. --B dash (talk) 10:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 02:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 21:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nebelmeer nördlich der Milseburg.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2017 at 11:56:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info View from the Milseburg in the Rhön Mountains northward over a sea of clouds during meteorological inversion. all by me.-- Milseburg (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Too dark. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. Daniel Case (talk) 04:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info @Daniel Case: , @King of Hearts: Yes, I spent some light. --Milseburg (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice now. Looks like something you would see from the window of an airplane. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Neptuul (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --B dash (talk) 10:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 02:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose So much shadow. Dark black shadow. And you support it? And you oppose or don't support my picture because of the shadow? It's unbelievable, really unbelievable. --Hockei (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 14:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Templo de Augusto, Pula, Croacia, 2017-04-17, DD 71-73 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2017 at 06:49:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Temple of Augustus, Pula, Croatia. The Roman temple is dedicated to the first Roman emperor, Augustus, it was probably built during the emperor's lifetime at some point between 27 BC and his death in AD 14. The richly decorated frieze is similar to that of Maison Carrée (Nîmes, France), and these two temples are considered the two best complete Roman monuments outside Italy. All by me, Poc o² 06:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 06:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support absolutely! (You might want to clone out a couple of star trails. It also appears as if the image needed a minor perspective correction. But no biggies, I'd support anyway.) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Poc o² 17:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was going to oppose because of the crane. Now I'm not sure, but I do know that I'd like the photo better without the crane. It's disconcertingly contemporary, an extraneous thing that's overly distracting to me eyes. Sure, the aerial TV antennas are also modern, but I tolerate the better because they're much smaller, and also more or less permanent structures. I would suggest for you to take another photo when the crane's work is done, but I could hardly demand for you to return to Croatia. Nevertheless, I think the crane does make the photo less outstanding than it could be. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ hoisting tower-- 晴空·和岩讨论页·反互煮 11:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
晴空·和岩: Could you please, elaborate your comment? Do you mean that the building is distorted in the vertical axis? I've cheched elements in the image (like windows) that could confirm that, but they look fine. I also checked other similar images in the web and couldn't see a problem. The fact that I was pretty far from the object, the lens I used and the similarity of the building to the image previous to the perspective correction make me believe that it isn't distorted. Poc o² 18:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Clear Sky C: 用中文写可以，我能帮着翻译。 -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I honestly don't see the problem. First off, the photograph tells a historical story with the juxtaposition of old and new. Secondly, Diego wasn't in control of whether the crane was there. -- Thennicke (talk) 11:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think cranes should be removed. --Mile (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Thennicke. Daniel Case (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan, Mile: the crane is gone. Poc o² 18:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither banding is good now. --Mile (talk) 07:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I'm not sure I really approve of cloning out stuff like this, but the result deserves support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan: I decided to clone it out because if I had taken the picture 6 months later the image would be as it looks now. The fact that it is a transitory object and also the fact that the subject of the image has looked like this for over 2000 years is an argument in my eyes Poc o² 18:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ermell (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine now. --cart-Talk 08:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --B dash (talk) 10:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 14:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mountain gorilla (Gorilla beringei beringei) yawn.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2017 at 14:48:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support He really needs to brush his teeth. Daniel Case (talk) 02:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Extraordinary. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Lighting is not optimal (a bit too harsh), but great capture nonetheless. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Support Light a tad too blue but it's a cool capture. --cart-Talk 08:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was a bit blue, thanks. New version uploaded. Charles (talk) 11:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --cart-Talk 17:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support we need a dentist here, urgently! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --B dash (talk) 10:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I was only 2m away I did hold out my toothbrush, but as you can see, he was not up for it. Charles (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles i think crop isnt perfect here, too much bushes. If you cut above and some on right side you get gorillas eye straight on third position. So gorilla cover much more of the image. --Mile (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May be. I've indicated possible crop on the image and see what others think. Charles (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per teeth brushers. I would prefer the new suggested crop. --Basotxerri (talk) 07:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlesjsharp and Charles: This is incredible! As I assume that this isn't a zoo shot and there wasn't thick and stable steel fence in between, how do you get so near? You shot this at 45 mm, that's pretty near. Wasn't it really scary to be there? --Basotxerri (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a member of the Titus Group in Volcanoes National Park, Rwanda - the original group studied by Dian Fossey You hike for a couple of hours through thick bushes with the trackers hacking a path and then you get one hour with your allocated group. You can't go if you have a cold and there are some other restrictions for women. The gorillas, habituated for many years, completely ignore you and don't even make eye contact (neither do you!). It is a magical experience in a stunningly beautiful and clean country. Amazingly, in Rwanda and in Uganda, when our hour was up and the guides said is was time for us to go, the gorilla group got up and walked off. On this hike, my wife and I were the only two tourists. Charles (talk) 08:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think the suggested crop would make the photo even better, so I'd support it, but I'm hardly adamant about it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PetarM and Ikan Kekek: cropped image uploaded. Charles (talk) 08:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support better than before. One good case why to use tilted screen...dont look into gorilla. --Mile (talk) 10:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Your work is amazing, if you need help editing your raws you know where find me --The Photographer 01:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for getting rid of the blue cast; it looks much nicer now -- Thennicke (talk) 07:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 22:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Styrkesvik village at the fjord crossing Sørfolda and Leirfjorden.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2017 at 17:24:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Frankemann - uploaded by Frankemann - nominated by Frankemann -- Frankemann (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Frankemann (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That left crop ruins it for me, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 22:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose chromatic aberration and excesive vivrance (maybe generated by the camera), jpg artifacts --The Photographer 00:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop/composition could be better and the colors look a bit strange. --cart-Talk 08:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per technical shortcomings noted by The Photographer. Daniel Case (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 22:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Maughan Library - 2017-09-16-3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2017 at 22:27:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#United Kingdom
Info The reading room of The Maughan Library. The students were very patient with the Open House visitors that weekend. Normally, photography and filming is not permitted, though it looks like something out of a movie. All by me. -- Colin (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ - Of course it's a nice photo, but I don't think the room really looks like that. If the 2nd floor really listed that way, all the books would fly off the bookcases. So I have to oppose for lack of realism. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distort and nothing of interesting --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is one of the instances where a fisheye distortion works. When you enter a library, you enter a bubble of calm, silent knowledge, a world of its own, so this is a fitting representation. It's not like anyone would think the room actually looks like this. We should embrace some artistic freedom in FPs too. All photography styles should be represented and we've had distorted fisheye FPs before. Examples: [4] [5] [6] [7]. --cart-Talk 08:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan, we've got even more fisheye FPs than Cart's list: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], as well as [14] and [15] which are slightly defished. For comparison, I've uploaded this photo fully defished by Lightroom. Here is the photo defished and here is it scaled 50% to show even more of the corners, though it is no longer a rectangular image. The second photo is obviously extremely distorted in the corners (which stretch out to infinity) -- the nearby desk and notepads are huge. The first photo is borderline usable, with the main problems being the oversized near desks and the poor girl on the right has stretched arms and hands.

So let's consider realism and distortion between the two: fished and defished. The fisheye doesn't maintain vertical lines to be vertical, nor horizontals to be horizontal, other than for the lines going through the midpoint. This fisheye lens (unlike some) additionally preserves diagonals that go through the midpoint (as seen in this photo). But it does preserve proportionate/relative size/position. The camera is on a tripod with the centre-pole extended so it is above head height. Everyone looks to be in reasonable proportion for humans, their notepads and laptops are reasonable, and the desk size is much as one would expect -- not stretched at all. The outer ring of desks and the little boxes the lamps are on help form a circle in your vision so you know this is a circular room. And everything is acceptably sharp from the corner of the desk next to the camera all the way to the far side and ceiling. Compare now the defished image, which one might achieve with a ultra-wide angle rectilinear lens. The proportions of the desks in the bottom corners are all wrong, and unforgivable for the student typing. The lampshades in the corner are a different shape to those in the middle. The zinc and glass ceiling is much stretched vertically so that one beings to doubt it is a dome rather than a huge cylinder. And although the centre is sharp, the corners are very very soft -- even the best ultra wide lenses are soft here. The stretching of the corners means the room now looks oval rather than round -- one no longer gets the impression it will circle round behind the camera.

I've had this fisheye for many years now and my impression is that it creates images that have a very similar view to vision. We only really concentrate on the central portion of vision and the brain tells us that the lines are straight even if our vision doesn't actually create that optically -- our retinas are not flat. The problem is that I can't shift the view as you look around this image so that the bit you are concentrating on looks straight. To do that, we need a 360 panorama like this one. That would have been nice to create, had this room been empty with nobody to disturb or to move around. As it is, this image is a blend of five photos where I chose the best bits of people when they didn't move.

I agree sometimes distortions and curves can mislead too much, but also portions and shape can mislead too. Up to you of course to decide if it works on balance here, or not. -- Colin (talk) 11:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate you and cart addressing this seriously. I don't oppose the use of the fisheye lens in all cases; it's in a case like this in which it's obvious that the shelves couldn't function like that that I have more trouble with it. I take the argument that since it's obvious to me that this can't be the real appearance of the place, I should figure everyone else looking at it would draw the same conclusion and that makes it OK. Reasonable people can differ on that. I take these case by case, depending on how I react. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cart nailed it --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Probably opposing will be from those who didnt try fish eyes (very wide angle lens) yet. cart you forget my shot here. It failed here, but won (somewhere else; check magazine Glasilo Ljubljana, številka 1, 2017, page 55). Known academic painter probably discovered some more. I think i will renominate it again. I didnt get FP, but i get 125 EUR. At least something. And i do like that shot. Somethime defishing will spoil nice curvatures. --Mile (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Suppport It's clearly a deliberate choice in style (which works for me in this case) rather than suggesting that the place really looks like that. Now if only the woman by the exit wasn't taking a photo on her phone.. -- KTC (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KTC, I found a sixth frame where she did not appear, so have blended that one in. She's vanished as if she never existed :-) If only I could do that with some politicians... (You may need to use Ctrl-F5 to refresh your browser cache). -- Colin (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Magic! :D -- KTC (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice fisheye shoot and of course showing a irreal distortion imposible for the human eye see. Excellent --The Photographer 12:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's too distorted for me. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not like the grey Second floor while the Bottom is bright. 晴空·和岩讨论页·反互煮 04:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Colin and cart. Daniel Case (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Ikan Kekek. HalfGig talk 14:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:HalfGig, Lothar Spurzem and Ikan Kekek. How you can see a "perspective fix", show distortion too in the real size of the library and cuting everything localed in the corners. IMHO a fisheye in this scenary is excellent because show more information and a point of view imposible for the human eye. File:The Maughan Library - 2017-09-16-3 alt.jpg

--The Photographer 14:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The new version is much better for me. This one is excellent. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the people on bottom are distorted and the real library size too and the corners are cut. --The Photographer 14:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find that new/second/corrected version utterly boring and unpoetic. --cart-Talk 14:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Photographer, what did you do to create the other version? It is less distorted than the the photo defished by applying Lightroom's lens profile. However, second floor verticals (see the red paint stripes) are a bit wobbly (esp the left) and some are still a bit curved. At the edges, the first floor verticals actually lean out slightly. Still, it is less strong a correction than a pure rectilinear, and might work well on some subjects that lack so many perfect vertical lines. -- Colin (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I applied a manual distortion change using photoshop distortion tool and warp tool. --The Photographer 17:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I like the "corrected" version and would support it. Yes, it contains a degree of distortion, but it's close enough to normalcy for me to accept it as a reasonable compromise. I can understand why you, cart et al. find the nominated version photographically interesting. It is. But it's disturbing to me and has a bit of a fun house vibe to it, as if the scene is reflected in a strange mirror. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our brain in this section became more and more like a square applying the rules like Noise fix, perspective fix and composition fix to all the photos alike and that is a serious error, each photo has its own peculiarities --The Photographer 19:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan, I think that the version produced by The Photographer is an interesting experiment but isn't sufficiently perfect in its corrections (particularly the wobbly bits) to satisfy the perfectionists at FP. And per Cart, it loses the character of the original photo. All these students, with the phones listening to their own music, working on their own laptops, and thinking about their own studies, are in a bubble: and this photo is a bubble. -- Colin (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you've gotten through to me with that bit of poetry. I will cross out my oppose vote on the basis of your metaphor. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another victim of the seduction artist --The Photographer 20:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great idea, well executed. --Code (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --fedaro (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A controversial nomination apparently. I'm not here to judge the choice of lens - rectilinear is not the only way to do architecture shots. It's of the usual high (wow) quality that Colin's images seem to be, and on that basis I believe it should be promoted. -- Thennicke (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMHO Wow there is. $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 05:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per cart. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice. --B dash (talk) 10:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Way too distorted, especially the side book shelves. -- Pofka (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 10:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposers. --Ivar (talk) 11:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 05:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2016R2717 - Київ.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2017 at 08:20:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by Мирослав Видрак - uploaded by Мирослав Видрак - nominated by Мирослав Видрак -- Мирослав Видрак (talk) 08:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Мирослав Видрак (talk) 08:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hard to evaluate a picture which is about 80% completely black. It has some charm in it with that moon, however I think there is way too few details to look at. If the towers of these churches would extend to the bottom of the picture, I might support it though. -- Pofka (talk) 09:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient quality for me, not even a QI. I also don't understand why it was possible to renominate it for QI in September 2017 after it was declined in September 2016. --Capricorn4049 (talk) 12:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's some charm, but generally the quality is not high enough for me.--Peulle (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is poor, compo could be better also. --Mile (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle, but also per Capricorn4049. There really should be some way to propose delisting photos for QI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 20:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rambla de Montevideo.ogg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2017 at 13:32:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Beach
Info created by fedaro - uploaded by fedaro - nominated by User:Fedaro -- fedaro (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- fedaro (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but the video quality is too low; I don't even think it would pass through QIC ...--Peulle (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose perPeulle. --Cayambe (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Capricorn4049 (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low quality. -- Pofka (talk) 07:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low light conditions, randowm views from Motevideo hard to recognize. --The Photographer 14:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 20:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Among the branches of a potted jade plant.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2017 at 10:20:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Crassulaceae
Info A slightly different take on photographing plants. Welcome inside the little jungle I have on my desk. All by me, -- cart-Talk 10:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 10:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the way it looks almost like some unknown animal ... I sort of expect those branches to be motile. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The secret life of plants..." --cart-Talk 19:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HalfGig talk 22:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've come back to this photo a bunch of times, and I've ultimately concluded that it's creative and imaginative and deserves support for a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ikan. I must admit that I got the idea from the latest Jungle Book movie where you can follow Mowgli as he runs along the tree trunks. :-) --cart-Talk 15:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read the Jungle Book when I was a kid. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 02:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ischgl - Walk of Lyrics - Message in a Bottle 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2017 at 08:27:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The soft lighting is also perfect for this scene, as it allows the textures to come out without having harsh shadows. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ - Sorry, I dissent: I'd like a little more illumination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 23:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd like more illumination, too. 晴空·和岩讨论页·反互煮 04:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 06:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support but would also propose to increase the exposure a bit --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I too would like this a little brighter and perhaps push the WB a bit from the blue. I'll only comment on it since I'm sure you can fix this. ;) --cart-Talk 09:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, that's one of my major failures, I always tend to leave the images too dark... Grrrr... I'll try to get that better as soon as I can. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Ikan Kekek, 晴空·和岩, cart: a bit brighter now, is it better? --Basotxerri (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks! That's more like it. :) --cart-Talk 18:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support JukoFF (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support While I agree with cart about how it could be improved, for me it's already an FP by virtue of its juxtaposition of the natural and artificial. Daniel Case (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well photographied! Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 22:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm still not satisfied and would like to see a photograph of this statue on a brighter day. However, the slight increase in light is sufficient for me to cross out my oppose vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Better processing would have made this a solid support from me, because the source image is quite good. But as it is I have to remain neutral - even if getting colours and tones to stand out isn't something I'm very good at in my own photographs -- Thennicke (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thennicke, I'd like to ask you for enhancing my skills: what improvements of processing are you thinking of? --Basotxerri (talk) 08:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well to me the image (mainly the bottom part of it) looks dull and pastel-coloured, and I suppose that means there isn't enough contrast. What I'm less sure about is the type of contrast that would improve this image - global contrast or local contrast. You'll have to experiment a bit I suppose, but I suspect it's a bit of both. Perhaps it would help if I could provide some examples of images from overcast days that I think have the right amount of contrast: [1] [2] -- Thennicke (talk) 09:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --B dash (talk) 10:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Köttmannsdorf Unterschlossberg Drau Eisenbahnbruecke 09102017 1426.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2017 at 11:21:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I would prefer the colors to be a bit less vivid --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I heeded your advice and reduced the colors' vividness. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Habt's ihr immer das schöne Wetter ;-) (blauer Himmel mit Wolken)? --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Weniger oft als im schönen Südtirol. Denn an den Dolomiten-Himmel reicht keiner heran. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 17:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question As always with an image like this I have to ask: were you on the tracks? Are they in use? Did you have permission of some kind? Daniel Case (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm sure he asked permission to his wife, as always. :-)))) --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Wolfgang just nailed it. As usual. Cheers! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! --Basotxerri (talk) 07:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HalfGig talk 22:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 02:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Capricorn4049 (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question Nobody complains about walking on the railway track?... Yann (talk) 13:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 13:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lindenallee entlang der Landesstraße 8128 03 2016-01 NÖ-Naturdenkmal WT-071.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2017 at 07:33:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created and uploaded by Duke of W4 - nominated by me -- Thennicke (talk) 07:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 07:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool, fresh and soft as a breath mint. Detail could be better in some places but the overall ambience makes up for that. --cart-Talk 08:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice. --B dash (talk) 10:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 12:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus 16:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A stark winter landscape. Daniel Case (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful. A good find. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 07:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very artistic, though I don't think the colour balance is quite right. Charles (talk) 09:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too blue? -- Thennicke (talk) 11:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
too purple? Charles (talk) 09:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very evocative. --Peulle (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 02:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 13:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:A girl putting flowers to Armenian Genocide memorial. View from top.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2017 at 16:19:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Xelgen - uploaded by Xelgen - nominated by Xelgen -- Xelgen (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support No objections. --A.Savin 21:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works well as an abstraction, but I also like how the small size of the girl, when you finally see her, sort of evokes the scale of the genocideI wonder if this will be nominated for FP on the Turkish Wikipedia? It would be interesting, to say the least ... Daniel Case (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not centered.--Jebulon (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)--Jebulon (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Fixed now, thanks for pointing this out Jebulon. --Xelgen (talk) 10:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support now, of course.--Jebulon (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Nice abstraction. Some minor quality issues such as noise and a few unsharp parts. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing your comments King of Hearts. I've applied some noise reduction, otherwise it was shot at lowest ISO. And yes I had a protective gimbal cover on, which is to blame for a flare/softness spot. Ironically protective cover didn't protect the camera, during crash 10 minutes after taking this shot.--Xelgen (talk) 10:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strong support. --Gnosis (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Teroele. Windmotor bij Troelstraweg 27 (Rijksmonument) 03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2017 at 15:49:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects # Windmill.
Info Teroele. Windmill at Troelstraweg 27 (National Monument). All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A windmill that has seen its better days. Not what the eye expects. Daniel Case (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very striking image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Famberhorst: There are some spots in the sky, I think it would be better to remove them. --Basotxerri (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Removed spots. Thank you for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HalfGig talk 22:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 03:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Tree-climbing lions (Panthera leo).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2017 at 15:44:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info The tree-climbing lions of Ishasha are the largest lion population of only two in Africa who rest up trees, almost certainly because of the (a) particularly aggressive tsetse flies and (b) large sycamore fig trees (Ficus sycomorus). Only about 50 lions live in Ishasha, a part of the Queen Elizabeth Park in Uganda. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Something disturbs me in the color side, but I can’t explain what... Could someone help ?--Jebulon (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Colours adjusted Charles (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Neither can i explain this, can get f is a bit too narrow, but texture is a mistery. Its like failed lens...droped lens !? --Mile (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very interesting picture, but too noisy, so for the time being, I vote against a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of fine details, possbily because the denoising Ezarateesteban 20:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Well I liked it for its rarity value. Charles (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Palazzo Papadopoli, Venice - September 2017.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2017 at 06:38:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture#Italy
Info Palazzo Papadopoli in Venice. I took this picture onboard a vaporetto on Canal Grande, so it was difficult to identify the perfect moment to push the shutter button. I do like the result, especially the pleasant lighting and sky. All by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The photographic equipment was not flattened, so the building is tilted. I found this situation when I was just looking at the thumbnail, so i cannot support.-- 晴空·和岩讨论页·反互煮 10:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 晴空·和岩讨论页·反互煮: the palace is rather "weird", see also [1]. I believe I've straightened all real verticals, maybe I'm wrong though. But don't put too much trust in the building itself... Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination anyway... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eiche-bei-Stuecht--4.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2017 at 21:10:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow composition, maybe QI but I can't see nothing special --The Photographer 21:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - To me the tree in this light and composition is its own wow. The foreground is more blurry than I usually like, but I just can't pass up supporting such a good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Foreground bokeh generally does the photo no favors (it would have been better to keep it sharp), but wonderful colors and lighting. Putting the tree right in the middle is a bold move but it works out in this case. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simple but elegant. I'm impressed you got it sharp despite the gust of wind that is turning all the leaves to the right. --cart-Talk 09:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not like the shooting effect of the lawn and the sky.-- 晴空·和岩讨论页·反互煮 10:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think foreground could be also in focus, and should be in panorama - more wide. --Mile (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is missing some Quercus-related category. --Basotxerri (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I see no FP here. It's just a tree and the light appears garishly. --Hockei (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Sort of a this halo left around the tree, visible on upper branches, possibly from processing. Can something be done about this? Daniel Case (talk) 02:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Ermell (talk) 06:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Why did you withdraw, with 6 supporting votes, 3 opposing votes and 1 neutral vote? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:La Pointe-Courte, Sète cf02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2017 at 18:00:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice Nikon D810 image quality, however, too much lake, main subject in shadow and finally no wow composition. --The Photographer 21:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per The Photographer. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support - I think this is a borderline FPC nominee, but to my eyes, it has enough interesting things to look at including the faraway wind turbines, and I love the peaceful mood set by the calm water and pastel tones. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:The water in the lower right corner is too dark, but the artistic conception is still good.-- 晴空·和岩讨论页·反互煮 10:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The composition is not that bad for me. Bud I miss colours. So for me it looks like an unwanted black and white picture. --Hockei (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination ok thanks for the reviews, I will maybe look if I can make a new processing to improve it a bit... Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dubrovnik as seen from Srđ - Detail - September 2017.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2017 at 07:30:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Croatia
Info The Old Town of Dubrovnik, an UNESCO World Heritage Site, as seen from Srđ using a telephoto lense. I like the rhythm and pattern of the cityscape - as well as all the little details of daily life one can spot. All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 12:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid this light isn't flattering for the view. --C messier (talk) 10:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too busy (maybe the image is trying to do too much) and looks a little overprocessed, as if the shadows and highlights both may have been manipulated a bit too much in order to bring out the roofs better. Daniel Case (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kefermarkt Kirche Kruzifix 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2017 at 04:42:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Austria
Info Crucifix at the parish- and pilgrimage church Kefermarkt, Upper Austria. Anonymous master, dated 1497. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very effective lighting and shadow for showing the crucifix and giving it a fittingly serious mood. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 07:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent, effective lighting! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ bottom crop. Charles (talk) 09:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Info The stem of the cross is very long. This crop was chosen to avoid lots of empty space in the image. --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think the reason for the crop is a good one -- Thennicke (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 09:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Benasque - Llanos del Hospital 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2017 at 09:42:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Spain
Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 09:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 09:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Мирослав Видрак (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HalfGig talk 22:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I might say the blue's a little oversaturated, but I've ended up with mine that way a few times, too. Daniel Case (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good spot, maybe a bit to oversaturated, sky especially, while other is good. --Mile (talk) 08:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support but the color of the sky looks unnatural, please check saturation and WB --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Uoaei1, PetarM, and Daniel Case: I've uploaded a new version, I think it's a bit better now, what do you think? --Basotxerri (talk) 06:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --cart-Talk 09:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 07:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sky is a bit noisy though. --Hockei (talk) 07:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Its better, but i would put so much sat in rainbow, blue especially. --Mile (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 09:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 10:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dülmen, Kirchspiel, Mini -- 2016 -- 5065-71.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2017 at 06:01:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Automobiles
Info created anf uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 06:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 06:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support We dont see much cars here. --Mile (talk) 06:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The car is well photographed, but it's the fantastic background with its great light and shade that really makes the photo special to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I could do without the text on the car but the concept is refreshingly new. Do you have many of these driver-less cars rolling about in Germany? --cart-Talk 09:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I would noticed. --XRay ^talk 09:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Advertisement-quality. Daniel Case (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a FP to me. I don't mind the glare at all. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 02:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it; very good -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 14:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Long-tailed macaque (Macaca fascicularis) Labuk Bay.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2017 at 09:18:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 09:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 09:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obviously your group was sent to dentist camp. --Mile (talk) 10:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great lighting, not so great teeth -- Thennicke (talk) 12:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Poc o² 17:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like the macaque the other macaques don't want to be caught at the same lunch table with since he just keeps talking about this or that and won't shut up. (Oh, and his teeth, while far from perfect, are better than the mountain gorilla's). Daniel Case (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 03:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 10:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Santorin (GR), Fira -- 2017 -- 2624.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2017 at 06:04:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Greece
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 06:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 06:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 07:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Elegant! --cart-Talk 08:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Artistic. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 11:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neat. :) --Peulle (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's a nice idea but I find the composition a little unbalanced. There is more space on the bottom than the top, even though the top is busier, so it just feels squished. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~The feature of this photo is not clear enough, I think.~~ Support -- 晴空·和岩讨论页·反互煮 03:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 14:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Schloss Favorite Ludwigsburg 2017 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2017 at 12:12:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Architecture
Info created and uploaded by Julian Herzog - nominated by me -- Thennicke (talk) 12:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the contrast in this image between the snow and the golden building -- Thennicke (talk) 12:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support stunning Charles (talk) 13:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus 13:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 17:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - After a long horse cart ride through the snow, we finally approach the gleaming Schloss. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ I won't break the chain of support, but I would think this would be better in fall where the contrast wouldn't be so prominent also sharper, what am I not seeing? Sixflashphoto (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you're not seeing (or feeling) is the fairytale winter landscape that I gave a scenario for above. And it's quite sharp enough, IMO, even not accounting for the huge resolution - it's 10,670 × 4,096 pixels! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sixflashphoto: And I don't see what's wrong with the contrast? It increases the wow IMHO -- Thennicke (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After some more contemplation I decided you were both right. It's a winter shot and contrast is unavoidable. I support this now. *

Support

Support --Ermell (talk) 20:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely colours.--Peulle (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bleak. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support and thank you! — Julian H.^✈ 04:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 08:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 07:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good, and nice. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 13:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2016R1442 - Київ.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2017 at 17:17:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Мирослав Видрак - uploaded by Мирослав Видрак - nominated by Мирослав Видрак -- Мирослав Видрак (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Мирослав Видрак (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very nice facade but not a super-outstanding composition or picture, sorry. If you want to get an FP of this motif, I think you'd need optimal focus, more even light on the two sides, perspective correction and probably a more interesting sky. What would this look like at dawn? Having no people or more carefully placed people on the streets might help. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp and noisy. Was the file upsampled? Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.-- 晴空·和岩讨论页·反互煮 03:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose About 40% of the building is in shadows. -- Pofka (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orthotomicus laricis (32330826995).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2017 at 18:33:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info created by Gilles San Martin - uploaded by GillesSM - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Impressive, considering that this beetle is 3 mm long. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing monster --The Photographer 20:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 05:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 10:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Almost excellent, but need to correct errors first (see note) 14:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesjsharp (talk • contribs)

Oppose Will remove as soon as very obvious processing errors corrected. @Christian Ferrer: Charles (talk) 09:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --B dash (talk) 10:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 02:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kormoran, poletuvanje, Golem Grad.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2017 at 08:22:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus : Phalacrocorax
Info created by MartinDimitrievski - uploaded by MartinDimitrievski - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A nice capture, but overall too much noise and processing for me, especially around the head.--Peulle (talk) 10:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good shot in good composition. Further sharp and good colors. Excellent for me. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, the bird is noisy. Charles (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, as I don't think this measures up to the great bird-in-flight pictures by folks like Laitche and Martin Falbisoner. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per technical flaws noted, and also I think the rocks on the far shore are too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 02:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 14:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Köttmannsdorf Unterschlossberg Drau Ferlacher Stausee Matzen Ferlacher Horn 09102017 1434.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2017 at 05:59:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created & uploaded by User:Johann Jaritz - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - IMO another great alpine fall picture by Johann. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks a lot, Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks awesome but there's a black spot on the dark green hillside on the left. Please fix it.--Peulle (talk) 20:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Black spot was being removed. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Peulle (talk) 09:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support A bit fuzzy at distance, but I don't think much could have been done about that. Daniel Case (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Capricorn4049 (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 03:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 07:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 07:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yes, Absolutely -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 22:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support good image, good composition, nice place Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support GOOD choice/nomination/picture/composition/framing/colors/place. Vielleicht vergesse ich etwas, Entschuldigung.--Jebulon (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 13:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Pernegg Kloster Turm 20170128.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2017 at 09:32:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Austria
Info Enclosing walls of the former monastery Pernegg, Lower Austria. This was taken at a temperature of -18° Celsius. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -18° Celsius and sunshine would have been nice. Charles (talk) 11:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like the mood and don't need sunshine for it. This is a very rugged type of beauty, and the cold is more palpable in the dark mist. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jaw-dropping. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 03:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't like the twoo cropped bushes - they interfere with the composition. Can they be cropped out or cloned? -- Thennicke (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I would clone out the bush bottom right. --XRay ^talk 07:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice juxtaposition of the bright, almost fractal branches and the dark rectilinear tower. Daniel Case (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info @Thennicke and Thennicke: New version uploaded, where the partly visible bushes are cropped and retouched out. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 13:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:House of Perkūnas, Kaunas, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2017 at 18:13:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Pofka -- Pofka (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -- Pofka (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The shadow in the lower right corner -- 晴空·和岩讨论页·反互煮 03:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The shadow in the lower right and the crop on the left both bother me too much. Perhaps FP with different framing -- Thennicke (talk) 06:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Thennicke: @Clear Sky C: Nothing can be done about the shadow because the street where this exceptional building stands is a narrow old town street with another buildings on the other side. This image does not have any shadows on the building itself and I think that is the best you can have in this place. I think the crop on the left is fine as well because this is the place where the ancient wall of this building ends and new modern gates starts. Examine this place by yourself: here -- Pofka (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that I don't get "wow" from this image. It's a good QI though -- Thennicke (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant oppose per Clear Sky C. If he hadn't pointed it out, I might never have noticed it, but once you see it you can't unsee it. Daniel Case (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Skeppsbrokajen Gamla Stan from Skeppsholmen Stockholm 2016 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2017 at 19:55:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Sweden
Info created and uploaded by Julian Herzog - nominated by W.carter -- cart-Talk 19:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a view I know by heart so I'm very picky with how it is depicted. It has been painted thousands of times and photographed even more and this is one of the best depictions of it I've ever seen. The light, going in a gradient from left to right, shows off the curve of the quay very well. For those who may not know this area; this is the east side of the small island that is the heart and origin of Stockholm. The foreground with its promenade is just as important as a historic landmark. -- cart-Talk 19:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oooh yes. Beautiful light. Like a painting. -- Colin (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Irresistible --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely colors, like a painting --The Photographer 20:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support artwork.--Ermell (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, normal shot for me, more people are disturb --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great lighting, especially with the clouds on the left, though composition on the right could be better. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like an old painting. Daniel Case (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think some of Julian's other recent uploads are far better than this one, and more deserving of the star -- Thennicke (talk) 11:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

That sound like a rather odd reason to not support a photo. I agree that many of Julian's recent uploads are stunning and I expect we'll see some of them here at FPC. However, FPC is not about which photo(s) of someones upload is the best; it is about which photo(s) of a certain subject is the best. IMO this is the best photo of Skeppsbrokajen we have. Are we really to limit the number of FPs that a photographer can get from a batch of uploads? --cart-Talk 14:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, it's in theory about which photos are among the very best on the site. Best in scope is really the primary criterion for VIC, not FPC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, technically, you are right. My point was more that I don't think we should limit how many FPs a photographer can achieve from a session/upload batch/trip/whatever. If someone can take a number of extraordinary photos in a brief time, then kudos to that photographer and thank you for uploading them here. --cart-Talk 18:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed 100%. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I agree with that point. I should have prefaced my comment by saying I'm not really wowed by this image; the foreground ruins the composition. I've changed my vote to oppose for the same reason - IMO the image isn't up to FP standard. -- Thennicke (talk) 07:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thennicke, the voting guidelines specifically discourage: '"You can do better" and other criticisms of the author/nominator rather than the image'. Ikan, I do think FPC should consider "best in scope", but that scope should never be the photographer's uploads in general. We have to take scope into account simply because otherwise it is really too hard to compare a portrait with a building with a landscape with a macro butterfly. It's the only fair way to judge, and to appreciate the difficulties / qualities we look for in each kind of subject/situation. VIC' scope is extremely narrow, though if Julian/anyone has uploaded photos of the same scene in the same conditions that are better, then I'd be interested to see them and reconsider my vote. -- Colin (talk)

Colin, we're on a similar wavelength. I don't say that scope, broadly considered, is not a consideration; I do say that it's not a primary consideration, but it's quite evident that we judge a picture of a tiny, rare insect differently from a picture of a mountain. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: This was not intended as a criticism of the author - I simply don't like the image; specifically the composition. That I came across in such a way is unfortunate, and I apologise. To answer your question, I think that [1] is a better image, though even then it's a bit "right-heavy" compositionally and it's a slightly different subject. -- Thennicke (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thennicke, I know it wasn't -- the quoted text isn't quite appropriate here. But "Julian's other recent uploads are far better than this one" really isn't an acceptable reason to oppose IMO, unless the "other recent uploads" are of the same scene+weather+style. -- Colin (talk) 09:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. My mistake, and I apologise. -- Thennicke (talk) 07:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree, good, cold tonality, but people could be out. --Mile (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 16:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 06:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The 3 persons are not disturbing at all, they make this image more natural --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Cities and towns are places built by people for people and they are a natural part of the scenery there. In this case I think they add to the composition by giving it more depth. --cart-Talk 08:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
+1, I can't to be more agree because people are important in a certain type of photography, it makes the composition more human. It would be kinky to think that in a city there is no one there like the land without humans. --The Photographer 17:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The couple walking and the man with the red hat both add a little to the picture. The lady obscured by the street pole is unfortunate though. Many of the very best urban photos feature someone in the frame, and often when you read about how they were taken, the photographer set up their camera and waited patiently for someone to come along and add the necessary life to their picture. I don't think that's quite the perfect moment here, but without people at all it would be a sterile photo. We are perhaps used to photos without people at FPC (vs the real world that is all about photos of people / with people) because it is the next level of hardness to get right. -- Colin (talk) 08:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that positioning people in a photo is harder but it can be worth the wait. You could also get some other living thing in the scene. In this painting of the same veiw, the artist has added two birds in the same place where we have people in this photo. --cart-Talk 08:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --B dash (talk) 10:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wedding ring with heart shadow.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2017 at 16:07:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
Info Wedding ring with heart shadow. Pretty much original, just croped some. My shot. --Mile (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 19:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support And 7 --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 05:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool setup.--Peulle (talk) 06:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like your light experiments. Pretty and useful, especially for projects like Wikiquote. -- Thennicke (talk) 11:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --B dash (talk) 10:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I don’t understand why the score, and not a book with a text or pictures.--Jebulon (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought is was a version of a saying we have in Swedish and that there were similar sayings in other languages: "Två människor möts, blir kära och ljuv musik uppstår." (Two people meet, fall in love and sweet music arises.) --cart-Talk 14:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting to be a common wedding picture ... the rings making these heart-shaped shadows in a book. Depending on the couple's preference it's either a religious text open to a section with text relevant to the couple (usually 1 Corinthians 13:4–8) or (like this) music used in the ceremony. Daniel Case (talk) 02:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really love it! $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 19:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 02:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good composition due to an original idea. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Question: Which piece of music is this (Bach's Air?)? And have you considered copyright issues with the sheet music? --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Я́коб Лю́двиг Фе́ликс Мендельсо́н Барто́льди (1809 — 1847) "Сон в летнюю ночь" --Mile (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Its same compositor of "Wedding march".

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Inside 118 inch HDPE pipe.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2017 at 03:58:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Quite interesting and different. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support sure --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting but not wowing. Daniel Case (talk) 06:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool shot, I like the cable snaking its way towards the camera. :) --Peulle (talk) 06:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yesss! More black on black. Very 'Der dritte Mann'-esque. :) --cart-Talk 08:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shot is good, but i would crop right side and some above, to bring center of light more to third rule. --Mile (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 20:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would be perfect if the persons were in focus--Ermell (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the page history says that the above vote was made by Ermell but you have to sign it to make it legit, please. --cart-Talk 08:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --B dash (talk) 10:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice idea, however, the people border look soft --The Photographer 23:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Saslonch udu da Mont de Seuc.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2017 at 21:15:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info all by -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could use a bit more brightness and saturation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Thanks @King of Hearts: --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak support per KoH --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought I'd find the shadows distracting but I really don't. Daniel Case (talk) 06:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel. It's interesting when shadows on mountain tops work for the picture. --cart-Talk 08:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For now, because the shadows seem unnaturally bright. -- Thennicke (talk) 11:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 12:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 16:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 20:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --B dash (talk) 10:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing light! - Benh (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The same opinion that in QIC --The Photographer 23:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 02:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sparragus pickers.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2017 at 03:39:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A bit of noise, but I like the composition and the documentary. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan, I also like that the seemingly random people form a sort of symmetry in the photo. --cart-Talk 09:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 17:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please look at the note, what is it? --Neptuul (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like some sort of weed stem. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question Could you please provide a geocode or at least the place where this is taken? The file page says nothing about this. --cart-Talk 04:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was taken in the valley of Maneadero, south of Ensenada, Baja California... but it could have been taken anywhere... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not anywhere. The asparagus pickers where I live, lie in a sort of vehicles when they pick or sit. I have sorted out the categories for you based on the new info. Thank you! :) --cart-Talk 09:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent composition, need noise reduction --The Photographer 21:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know they were hard at work, but the poses ... almost make them look like a dance troupe. Daniel Case (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agricultural workers are a special breed... They work in what amounts to inhumane conditions. Stoop labor is backbreaking labor, which generates terrible medical conditions later on in life. Migration, on the other hand, and an aging population puts the food supply at risk. This happens because of work conditions and the attractiveness of city jobs. We´ll see what happens... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for share this image and history, very kind documentary work. I hope see more pictures about the illegal situation and modern slave work on US border. --The Photographer 19:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support But can we fix the spelling in the filename? -- Colin (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Almost like a choreographed dance. Pity about the quality. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Wandeltocht rond Lago di Pian Palù (1800 m). in het Nationaal park Stelvio (Italië) 46.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2017 at 04:34:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Walking around Lago di Pian Palù (1800 m). in the Parco nazionale dello Stelvio (Italy). All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Lovely and beautifully framed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 07:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Мирослав Видрак (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 10:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 00:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 13:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Yixian Hongcun 2016.09.09 18-00-34.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2017 at 11:29:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info w:Hongcun, a World Heritage Site in China, created, uploaded & nominated by myself. -- Zhangzhugang (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zhangzhugang (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose I like the composition and colors, but it's just too unsharp in the background, even accounting for the mist. Daniel Case (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background is extremely blurry. -- Pofka (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the blurry background is a aisadvantages.Instead. it can ruin the artistic conception if the background is too clear.-- 晴空·和岩讨论页·反互煮 04:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blue hour, peaceful atmosphere --Neptuul (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 19:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Santorin (GR), Exomytis, Marina Exomitis-Vlychada -- 2017 -- 2812.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2017 at 14:21:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others_2
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 14:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 14:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fishing nets usually make for interesting photos but they don't work too well here. The colors are too bland in the flat light to make sufficient contrasts, half the scene have harsh shadows and the other almost none, it just looks messy. Sorry, I think you should have gone in closer. --cart-Talk 18:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This works well for me as an abstract form. I would enjoy a painting that looked like this, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per cart, who sees exactly the same issues I do. Daniel Case (talk) 06:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cart and Daniel, sorry. Maybe a gradual filter from the right could get the lighting better but I'm not sure if it would be enough for a FP. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks to all reviewers. IMO the photograph will not become FP. So I can nominate another one. --XRay ^talk 05:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /XRay ^talk 05:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:École Marcelle-Mallet.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2017 at 21:40:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info All by -- The Photographer 21:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Quite striking, but there appear to be stitching errors just above and to the right of the central cross. If they're not stitching errors, they're something else that needs to be fixed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why is the photo slightly off-center? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Stitching problems, need PD corrections. --Mile (talk) 05:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The main building is too gray-- 晴空·和岩讨论页·反互煮 10:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image is too unnatural. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I can see what you were thinking but it just didn't come together. Daniel Case (talk) 06:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sure what projection this is, but it isn't working for me. Perhaps just too wide-angle? I can see why you want to keep the upper-clouds but the sky is a bit inconsistent with some parts dark and less good to look at, and I think this unbalances the composition having so much sky. The building hasn't got great light on it, which would really help make it pop with some raking sunlight. As others noted, the viewpoint is off-centre in a way that doesn't quite work, and the sky has some stitching glitches. There's quite a lot of gravel foreground, which isn't that interesting. A square crop of the central part of the building would avoid the perspective issues. I think it needs to either be centred closely or else much more off-centre. Is there no way you can get further back to photograph it? -- Colin (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. This place is located on an island, I need to take a boat to get there, however, I think I can do it again. It is not possible to take a picture in the morning because of the children there, however, I could try to make an HDR to mitigate the shadow on the facade. I added the sky because I found it dramatic and to do a balance with the foreground--The Photographer 19:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Κίονας Αθηνάς - Ακαδημία Αθηνών 1186.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2017 at 10:09:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
Info created by C messier - uploaded by C messier - nominated by C messier -- C messier (talk) 10:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The statue of Athena at the Academy of Athens, work of Leonidas Drosis (died in 1886).
Support -- C messier (talk) 10:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dust spots, out of focus --The Photographer 21:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Photographer, I assume you don't consider it sharp enough (although it is in focus), but can you please add notes at the dust spots?--C messier (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Lighting does it no favors. Daniel Case (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parque del castillo de Goluchow, Polonia, 2016-12-21, DD 29.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2017 at 13:21:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info View of the arboretum surrounding the Gołuchów Castle, Greater Poland Voivodeship, Poland. The arboretum is the largest landscape park in Greater Poland and also on its own a registered polish monument. Poc o² 13:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 13:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I love this composition, but the lack of DoF IMHO. My recomendation is take two pictures to use a merge image technique or use tripod if the light conditions are very low, however, maybe it´s not the case.
Oppose I was thinking the same thing; too few of the trees are sharp, IMO. Good composition, though.--Peulle (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition --Mile (talk) 05:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The shallow DOF helps create an organic, three-dimensional impression. Absolutely fine with me. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice light, but shallow DOF is imho very distracting, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 07:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martin. Daniel Case (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 17:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monumento de Guerra, Jardín del Patio, Múnich, Alemania, 2017-07-07, DD 03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2017 at 08:58:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Monuments_and_memorials
Info War memorial monument ("Kriegerdenkmal"), Hofgarten, in front of the Bayerische Staatskanzlei, Munich, Germany. The monument is composed of an open crypt, that consist of 12 stone blocks, lcoated in the middle of a rectangular pit. The crypt just contains the statue of a dead soldier, a work of Bernhard Bleeker. The monument was inaugurated in 1924 but the origintal statue, that was replaced by a bronze cast in 1972, and is now exhibited in the Bavarian Army museum in Ingolstadt. All by me, Poc o² 08:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 08:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ah, that was on my bucket list as well... well, too late. Good, important nom. But why didn't you use a tripod? Technically the image could be better. Considering that it was taken handheld, it's awesome, of course, and it's certainly good enough to pass here. But it's not that the monument is so crowded that using a tripod is impossible... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I shot it without a tripod, checked the quality, I found it pretty good and came to the conclusion that a tripod wasn't really required. To be honest I didn't expect then to nominate it for FPC but when I saw it on the monitor I really enjoyed the lighting, so, here we're...Poc o² 17:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little distorted, but maybe since it was handheld that can't be helped anymore than it might have already been. Daniel Case (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Not the sharpest but quite good for the conditions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I'm neutral because the size of the photo is probably great enough for the noise and unsharpness of the statue and closer foreground to be OK, but I really don't understand why several of you think that we should relax our standards ("considering/since it was handheld") because Poco chose unnecessarily not to use a tripod. Why should we take into consideration that a tripod was not used in a situation in which it could have been used? The more I think about that in particular, the more tempted I am to oppose on that basis, but I will not, because of the aforementioned file size, and also the excellent composition and combination of light and shade. It may be good enough to feature - but without consideration of how it was taken. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan: I totally disagree with your comment and the direction it goes. The main reason why we all take our cameras and go out is because it is fun. I cannot agree that anybody takes away my freedom to take the pictures the way, when and how I want. If a picture deserves a FP star it should get it, independently whether it could be even better. If your point would be considered valid the next one would say "why did you use that lens instead of that other one, I am sure the result would have been even better for this scene" or "why where you there at 2 p.m. instead of 5 p.m. the ligthing then would have been even better" or "why didn't you used that day your 50 MPx camera and just the 40 MPx one"? Sorry, but we are talking about freedom and about fun here. Pictures have to be judged the way they are. If somebody tops one we can always start a delist and replace process but that's a different story. Poc o² 06:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it isn't good enough to feature; I'm saying that we shouldn't judge the photo by lower standards because you didn't use a tripod. That's what it sounds to me like some people are doing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, it's extremely common for FPC nominations to fail because of criticism that the time when the photo was taken wasn't as good as it could have been. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan: the question hier ist the "even" before "better". If a picture is over the FP bar, than it should become FP. If the picture is below it shouldn't, and if the reason for that is the timing, the equipment, whather, then that's perfectly fine. But my impression here was that you consider that the picture deserves FP status but you didn't support because it could have been managed even better. Poc o² 07:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm genuinely neutral. I think it may warrant a feature, but I'm not sure because the noise and unsharpness in the foreground give me some pause. And I wanted to express my opinion that we should judge the photo as it is, not by handicapping it on the basis of it being a hand-held photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, got you, Ikan. I missunderstood you. Poc o² 18:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm sorry, but the main subject is not sharp enough for me. --Ivar (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 09:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the wow factor despite the technical shortcomings.--Peulle (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wolf spider (Lycosidae; Slovenia).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2017 at 06:34:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida#Family : Lycosidae (Wolf spiders)
Info Wolf spider (Lycosidae; Slovenia), size of body bellow 2 cm. My shot. -- Mile (talk) 06:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 06:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Background is "busy", but I have to support you for getting such an amazingly clear larger-than-life picture of this spider, and I mean every visible part of the spider is in focus. That's really impressive. Is this a single shot? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great light and I really like how the grass and leaf gives a depth to the overall photo. This could be an illustration in a childrens' book, the kind a parent would read and point out all the little details to their child. --cart-Talk 09:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 11:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Ikan Kekek Its stacked shot, if you mean for composition, i have 2 more shots, but as cart said, light and background/composition is best here - for childrens book. --Mile (talk) 13:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, unfortunate background, but the sharpness and detail with this impressive depth of field is outstanding. Charles (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info For background, this is their habitat. They don't spin webs and don't catch their prey in them, they do that on the ground. Actually, I am very happy with background, isnt so easy to capture it. --Mile (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said the leaf is distracting, and as I said, an outstanding image. Charles (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the leaf is part of the story. - "...and so Peter the Spider walked along the grass straw, down to the curled up brown leaf where Amanda the Ladybug had hidden the treasure." That's all for tonight kids. Goodnight and sleep tight. :) --cart-Talk 19:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support perfectly stacked.--Ermell (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 13:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan and cart. Daniel Case (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida#Family : Lycosidae (Wolf spiders)

File:Billerbeck, Opel Wiens, Opel Adam -- 2017 -- 0625.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2017 at 05:45:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Automobiles
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 05:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 05:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - If there's something great about this photo, it's lost on me. OK, it's a very sharp closeup of most of the back of a car and some drops of water on an overcast day, and the composition is quite crowded and feels tense to me. Please tell me what I missed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I think there are simply different opinions. Sometimes I like a photographs and it could be a FPC. I sometimes read the reviews and may be a few days later I still like the photograph and I think no longer it could be a FPC. ;-) --XRay ^talk 09:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No wow here. The light is ordinary, the background is busy ... --Peulle (talk) 10:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition and the use of DoF. @XRay: Is there a slight CA on the badge or am I wrong? --Basotxerri (talk) 10:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose One of those "I can see what you were thinking" pictures. And if it had been just the back of the car, or just the sign, it might have worked for me. Daniel Case (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I think it is time to withdraw the nomination. Thank you for your reviews. --XRay ^talk 16:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:2013.05.18.-24-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim-Vierfleck-Weibchen.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2017 at 15:48:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Libellulidae (Skimmers)
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great closeup. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 10:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The detail of the wing structure is really cool! --Alandmanson (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the eyes. And the rich colors. Daniel Case (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 18:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question Arent those second and third optrions much better than this ? There is one mistake - anoted. Seems like post foucus, but GH3 doesnt have it - how did you get it ? --Mile (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No mistake! See my answer in the note. Look carefully, then you'll see what it is. This is a single shot. And I didn't use any optrions (what ever you mean). At most I used extension rings. A lot of time is gone by now, so I can't remember exactly. I made the picture in the year 2013. --Hockei (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I get it, its other part of edge. --Mile (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--Hockei (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --fedaro (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Benasque - Aigualluts - Árbol muerto 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2017 at 18:18:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Spain
Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Reminds you of Ansel Adams. Note that BW does hide unsharpness, and the foreground grass would look like a blob of fuzzy green carpet if it were a color image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reminds me to much of Yosemite to say no. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 06:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 07:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Oppose~~ weak support per KoH basically. Any chance to redevelop your raw? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can, but sorry, I don't understand exactly what you want me to do. The front part is unsharp because I shot this using a 120 mm eq. telephoto lens. If you tell me what to improve I could try to do so. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I was being unfair. The foreground looks blotchy to me, so I assumed that the image was simply overprocessed. Your technical explanation is convincing, I'll change my vote. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry Martin, I understand your arguments and you just express your opinion. Maybe the next time I'll have to be more conscious about the depth of field but of course it can't be the same image in the same place. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King and Sixflashphoto. Daniel Case (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support great picture. --Harlock81 (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Capricorn4049 (talk) 23:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Faust tower - Maulbronn Monastery.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2017 at 20:00:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Maybe I'm missing something, but this scene isn't inspiring me, although of course it's a very technically good photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not like the partial exposed land, and this scene isn't inspiring me, too.-- 晴空·和岩讨论页·反互煮 03:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ikan Kekek,晴空·和岩 look at Faust-Story too for inspiring --Neptuul (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As a musician, of course I know the Faust story. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just focus on the picture. Its story has nothing to do with me. -- 晴空·和岩讨论页·反互煮 04:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a QI for me. -- Colin (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Capricorn4049 (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rdeča mušnica (Amanita muscaria).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2017 at 05:52:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi
Info created & uploaded by Mile - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Awesome amanita picture! The depth of field is about as close to ideal as possible, and the level of detail is outstanding. There's also a tiny little insect on the mushroom's shaft - can any of you identify it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great photo. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Johann. I especially like how the background fades to black (making the mushroom stand out), and yet the lighting is even -- Thennicke (talk) 07:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanx Ikan Kekek for nomination. And true, Thennicke, i was looking for a mushroom which i can dissolve with black background, so object become more clear. --Mile (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- -donald- (talk) 08:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I just wish this would be in portrait format --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Excellent @PetarM: , but portrait format for me too. Charles (talk) 11:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info Interesting question Charles, Uoaei1, more topic for me. I asked myselve while ago, why people use mostly panorama and not portrait at mushrooms. Probably because of T form, otherwise i even tried portrait; i didnt even shot, what i saw on viewfinder was enough to abandon portrait. And mostly they do it in panorama. So answer here is no. I dont tell that is always necessary, but in my case was. And probably in most FPs on Commons also. For checking more see Fungi photos. Google can admit that. I saw situtation for portrait shot, as they grow like that. Someday i will try. --Mile (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well it would be silly to not vote when anyone wanting to use the image cropped can crop it. Charles (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Support~~ -- Giancarlolozza (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Giancarlolozza, thanks for dropping by this board and for your vote. What's the rule in terms of eligibility to vote? I don't see 50 prior edits, but he's been a Commoner since no later than 9 July 2008, so does he become eligible by virtue of length of membership, providing he signs in and doesn't just vote using his IP address? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That IP address is an open proxy. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess the vote is invalid. Why can open proxies be blocked on sight? Only some of them that have a history of trolling or vandalism, I think? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP not allowed to vote. -- Colin (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Perfect!--Ermell (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I, too, would prefer it in portrait, but I accept Mile's reasoning for why he kept it this way. Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great sharpness, a worthy FP. Also a VI, I think.--Peulle (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Peulle so far just Italian Wiki has article for this variant of mushroom, but enough for VI i think. I will put it.--Mile (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 03:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 06:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp! Mile, what lens did you use? --Basotxerri (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Info Its macro lens-Zuiko 60 mm. --Mile (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Another great stacking shot -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me it is not a FP. The quality of the mushroom is very good. But not more. There is no composition at all. The background is just black. I have no feeling when I look at it. --Hockei (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi

File:Village weaver (Ploceus cucullatus cucullatus) female.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2017 at 15:17:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Outstanding. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and very good -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support If only you could tell Birds to hold that pose. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I more like 1st pano shot. --Mile (talk) 10:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a great photo. --cart-Talk 09:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very steady! --Harlock81 (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--fedaro (talk) 07:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fedaro: Sorry, you already voted before.--Capricorn4049 (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Capricorn4049 (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Swiss Camp (Greenland), aerial photography 4.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2017 at 00:34:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Capricorn4049
Oppose Sorry but I'm not seeing the quality I expect from an FP; the detail is just not high enough.--Peulle (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This photo is pretty noisy in the sky and last time I checked, it had apparently been declined at QIC for technical reasons. I'm not seeing anything about the photo that's so outstanding in other ways as to prompt an FP designation in spite of that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Interesting composition, very good colors, sharp enough, for me not too noisy -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very harsh environment, technically too cold to fly a drone, extraordinary location. --Capricorn4049 (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 08:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Weissfluhjoch Panorama winter labeled.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2017 at 00:36:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Capricorn4049
Support --Zhangzhugang (talk) 04:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Outstanding. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 09:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support diligent work.--Ermell (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is a nice photo.-- 晴空·和岩讨论页·反互煮 04:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Instructive, but the cut-off constructions spoil FP. On this summit it seems to me that it´s impossible to make a FP. --Milseburg (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Capricorn4049 (talk) 03:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 08:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Waldburg Kirche Innenraum 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2017 at 09:18:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Austria
Info Interior of the parish church Waldburg, Upper Austria. Winged altars by Lienhard Krapfenbacher and his studio, 1517–1523. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The noise correction looks overdone. How much did you use?--Peulle (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Seems a little bright and washed-out in places. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed, per Puelle and Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Convenience Store Shelf, Tokyo 2014.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2017 at 15:57:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects#Others_2
Info Something completely different... The orderly chaos of a shelf in a Japanese convenience store with all its colors, shapes, and kawaii ideograms; all by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good effort but there's nothing special here, IMO. The lighting, the angle... there's just nothing that makes me go: "wow".--Peulle (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose i'm afraid. I'm comparing with File:Pharmacie in Paulista Avenue.jpg above. I think your white balance is a little yellow here. The pharmacy picture had regularity in the rectangles of the boxes, shelves and image frame. Here is more chaos as you say. I wonder if the portrait orientation is the reason it isn't working for me? -- Colin (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Colin. I decided to keep the yellowish tint back then as it resembles the actual lighting situation rather well. Or so I remember... As for the orientation, I guess it's a matter of taste - and always depending on the object one is actually taking pictures of. All this being said, the above nom - which I may have inspired (?) - is definitely superior. That's why I'll withdraw my own. I'll retake the motif the next time I make it to Japan. Hopefully soon...! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spb 06-2017 img47 Church on the Blood.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2017 at 08:58:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info Bird's eye-view of Church of the Savior on Blood and Griboyedov Canal in Saint Petersburg, Russia - all by A.Savin --A.Savin 08:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 08:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The overall tone is too grey-- 晴空·和岩讨论页·反互煮 09:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this should be rotated into portrait. Perhaps anticlock. --Mile (talk) 09:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the general composition.--Peulle (talk) 09:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Capricorn4049 (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image. Birds' eye views are always awesome to look at, even if (according to a photographer I was chatting with the other day) they're often judged as a fad in more "serious" photo competitions. -- Thennicke (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, good job. --Selbymay (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Quite visually arresting. But I wonder whether it would look better with a bit of noise reduction. What do you think? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did my usual portion (for Phantom always more than for DSLR) in Lightroom. Some remaining noise in darker areas is inevitable, but I'm eagerly awaiting a Phantom with more megapixels, less noise, and not much more weight and price... )) --A.Savin 09:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unsual view and it works. --C messier (talk) 10:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Because it looks like some kind of weird steampunk machinery. :) --cart-Talk 18:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per cart. It has the technical shortcomings of most drone pictures, but it's an arresting view that only the drone could have gotten. Daniel Case (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 13:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Statue of Saints Cyril and Methodius on Radhošť.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2017 at 11:13:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The left and top crops are a bit wide, methinks.--Peulle (talk) 12:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same as Peulle --Capricorn4049 (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Done --Pudelek (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Peulle (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Capricorn4049 (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very pleasant light & shadows. --Selbymay (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Selbymay. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others.-- 晴空·和岩讨论页·反互煮 04:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh contrast, need WB, jpg artifacts --The Photographer 21:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--fedaro (talk) 07:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:MB&F Arachnophobia Black.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2017 at 15:16:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by MB&F - uploaded by MB&F - nominated by Claus Obana -- Claus 15:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Claus 15:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~, but again, please add a prose description to the file. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose insufficient description Ezarateesteban 20:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above...seems like copying Jeff Deboer. --Mile (talk) 08:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 10:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per others. Daniel Case (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing to Oppose because no-one seems to be monitoring the comments here with an eye toward responding to the need to improve the documentation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Capricorn4049 (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nanxiong Sanying Ta 2014.01.12 08-26-52.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2017 at 13:17:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Sanying Pagoda, a pagoda in Guangdong, China, built in 1009, more than 1000 years ago. All by Zhangzhugang -- Zhangzhugang (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zhangzhugang (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is not a bad idea and the image could work but as it is, it seems too pale and would require better lighting and sharpness to convince me. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basotxerri, especially the comment on sharpness. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basotxerri. Daniel Case (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basotxerri. --Mile (talk) 06:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Capricorn4049 (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neymar Jr official presentation for Paris Saint-Germain, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2017 at 14:53:06 (UTC)

With new shirt
With PSG chairman Nasser Al-Khelaïfi
Skills

Info The most expensive footballer Neymar Jr official presentation for Paris Saint-Germain, 4 August 2017.
Info created by by Antoine Dellenbach (Flickr) - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much noise (why is the ISO so high?) and the left image is of too low resolution for me to support the set.--Peulle (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because I really don't see any of them as exceptional. Two of them are tilted and the other is a pretty standard grip-and-grin image. Daniel Case (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid I have to agree with the other opposers --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would support just 3rd. --Mile (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. It's a good shot. -- Thennicke (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Capricorn4049 (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Centro histórico de Skagway, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-18, DD 41.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2017 at 07:10:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created & uploaded by Diego Delso - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Something different. I think it's interesting enough to feature. I'll be interested to see what you think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 10:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I thought of this as an FPC when I saw it on QIC, however the crop isn't symmetrical what I would prefer for this kind of image. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fair enough, Basotxerri, fixed Poc o² 16:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support and once more my gratitude to Ikan Poc o² 16:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

De nada. You did all the work. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support OK, you deserve my vote . Thank you! --Basotxerri (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice but WB is too yellow. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 01:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain because I am currently a judge for WLM-US and this may yet come up as a candidate. Daniel Case (talk) 03:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes. -- Thennicke (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 10:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sky seems a little too dark, but the house is nice.-- 晴空·和岩讨论页·反互煮 15:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support a bit distorted though. --Laitche (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dead Horse Gap Panorama facing north-east, NSW.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2017 at 11:29:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Dead Horse Gap, Kosciuszko National Park
Info all by me -- Thennicke (talk) 11:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 11:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Interesting terrain, flora and colors, nice clouds. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 10:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. With that time of year approaching in the Northern Hemisphere, I can practically feel the chill in the air looking at this image. I also love the name ... Dead Horse Gap. Sounds like a place you'd find here in the U.S. in the southern Appalachians (and the town in the Alaskan Arctic). Daniel Case (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:NASA's Shuttle Carrier Aircraft 905 (front) and 911 (rear).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2017 at 11:36:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info an important historic aviation image; both airplanes are retired due to the end of the Shuttle program
Info created by NASA/Carla Thomas - uploaded by Ras67 with modifications by Thennicke - nominated by me -- Thennicke (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Historic, and also a very good photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Impressive and a rare view of both SCAs in one photo. --Ras67 (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good. Now where's Superman...? --Peulle (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 09:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 08:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thennicke Historical category !? --Mile (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PetarM: Hmm, yes, looking at that category it doesn't seem appropriate. It should be in both Air transport and Space Exploration. Can we change that? -- Thennicke (talk) 03:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 19:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Auguste Mariette photography.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2017 at 21:01:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Nadar - uploaded by Jebulon - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I mildly Oppose, because as good as this is, I think the restoration process isn't complete and the dark shape just above and to the viewer's left of the man's head is probably just a product of the damage shown in the original scan. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you Kasir for choice. I did my best with this very difficult restoration. I think perfection requested is not of this world...--Jebulon (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why would it be so difficult to make the dark area about the same as the rest of the background? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Try by yourself, and you will see ! --Jebulon (talk) 08:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the best version --Kasir (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument for VIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Already VI.--Jebulon (talk) 08:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ikan. I agree it was a spirited restoration, and you started from very far back, but I don't think the result is up there with our other featured restorations. Daniel Case (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support I think this is the best it's going to get. Daniel Case (talk) 06:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- @Ikan Kekek and Daniel Case: Better now ?--Jebulon (talk) 08:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The background looks strange. Yes the source image wasn't great, but I imagine it's a wall behind him, or perhaps a sheet, and the texture seems wrong for such a backdrop - it should be smoother, no? -- Thennicke (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 08:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Drum of a washing machine (Bosch Maxx WFO 2440).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2017 at 07:50:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info Drum of a front-loaded washing machine (Bosch Maxx WFO 2440; 5 kg; 1200 RPM). All by me. -- Mile (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I dont know why they didnt accept it on "Women's world" !? Its still fine shot. -- Mile (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do only women wash where you live? --cart-Talk 09:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support great idea - --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 07:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool. --A.Savin 10:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment CA removal needed.--Peulle (talk) 11:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Show me Peulle, where is it. cart you forget to vote. --Mile (talk) 11:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments can be made without voting. You have nothing to gain by telling people to do so, it's just rude. I don't have the time to examine photos closely right now. --cart-Talk 12:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose For such a static subject I think the composition needs to be better. The rib at the bottom isn't centered, and the bottom corners have intrusive elements. Perfect lighting and processing though -- Thennicke (talk) 12:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thennicke if you crop corners you will lose lot of picture. If think this is better than croped. Static - more or less all is static. --Mile (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but I still don't like the rib at the bottom. Do you still have access to this washing machine? If you could do it again with everything symmetrical I'd be supporting -- Thennicke (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doing on that Thennicke, centralizing...but some corners will stay, cant go out, unless drum would be so big, to put camera more in. --Mile (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Interesting idea. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info Now is more in center Thennicke. And some CA was there Peulle, i removed. --Mile (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Peulle (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support What do you do if the weather is horrible but you like to shoot something? You go for the washing machine! --Basotxerri (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Been there, done that! And Support btw. --cart-Talk 21:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, cart, that's the image I was thinking of. And how desperate someone must be who puts some torch lights in a washing machine for shooting it! --Basotxerri (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot: "Having to stand in the bathtub and placing the tripod in the washbasin, hoping I wouldn't slip and drop the camera in the toilet..." I had a very small bathroom back then. (And I was very bored.) --cart-Talk 19:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good shooting Angle-- 晴空·和岩讨论页·反互煮 11:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I knew from cart's attempts in the past that there was a potential FP in this subject. Amazing shot that made me stop scrolling. Daniel Case (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support At first I thought it was a B&W shot of an insect's head. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 19:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:Altenstein-Kapelle-Ruine-266191.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2017 at 21:43:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Remains of the chapel of Altenstein ruin

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info nominated by me -- Ermell (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support peaceful --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Martin said it. --cart-Talk 09:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 10:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ermell is this made of Hi-Res shot ?--Mile (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Mile No Hi-Res.
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Party-poop oppose I don't know, maybe it's the many different forms, or the subdued colors, but I'm just not wowed. Daniel Case (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "oppose" is enough, "party-poop" may be hurting. This is not a "party".--Jebulon (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+ 1 --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice atmosphere and colours and although it seems somewhat insignificant, I like how book on the table can be seen entirely. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition but the processing isn't doing it for me: seems too dark -- Thennicke (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Llez (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 07:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bergtocht van Sapün (1600 meter) via Medergen (2000 meter) naar brug over Sapüner bach (1400 meter) 001.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2017 at 04:45:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info Mountain trip from Sapün (1600 meters) via Medergen (2000 meters) to bridge over Sapüner bach (1400 meters). Panorama from Seebjibodem 2072 (meter). Special atmosphere at 2072 meters altitude.

All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 07:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A bit dark, and the composition seems very much weighted towards the right hand side, which bothers me. Nice colours and scenery though -- Thennicke (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 06:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the mood and the colours --Llez (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 07:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MB&F HMX Black Badger Blue.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2017 at 15:18:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by MB&F - uploaded by MB&F - nominated by Claus Obana -- Claus 15:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Claus 15:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ - Very clean photo, but please add to your file description the fact that this is a watch, because it's not clear just by looking at it, and I think supplying just a link isn't optimal. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For description. I had to see official page what am i looking at. Can anyone read what time is it !? Otherwise good commercial shot. --Mile (talk) 08:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others about the description. Documentation for an FP should be just as good as the photo. Regarding the photo, it is no doubt a very good photo but I simply fail to be wow-ed by yet another advertisement using black on black to make their product look cool. It looks rather flat and clinical. --cart-Talk 09:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a clear FP photography-wise in my book, but Oppose per the others re documentation. It really is necessary to get these things done before nominating.--Peulle (talk) 10:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 13:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support per Ikan pending better documentation. Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing to Oppose because no-one seems to be monitoring the comments here with an eye toward responding to the need to improve the documentation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Mile. --Karelj (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 07:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aspen groves in Öhed.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2017 at 18:44:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Sweden
Info Sometimes it pays to take the longer, scenic route to work and I have learned to keep a simple tripod in the car. ;) All by me, -- cart-Talk 18:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 18:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sublime. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing of interesting for me...(no wow) --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 01:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Livio -- Thennicke (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Livio --Karelj (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Burg-Rabenstein-Ailsbachtal-P1290149.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2017 at 19:47:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rabenstein castle in the Franconian Switzerland near Bayreuth

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info Rabenstein castle in the Franconian Switzerland near Bayreuth. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - What a dramatic location! And a really good photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is very beautiful but I think you darkened the sky just a tad too much in your latest version, such that it looks unnatural. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are right. I tried to fix that. Thanks a lot.--Ermell (talk) 06:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Much more natural now. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Capricorn4049 (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Love it too, but could you do something about those odd pinkish areas on the clouds highlights? Daniel Case (talk) 06:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you add some 0,1-0,15 exsposure i support. Too dark. --Mile (talk) 08:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Done @Daniel Case: @PetarM: Tried to fix and hope it`s o.k.Thanks a lot for your reviews.--Ermell (talk) 07:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HalfGig talk 01:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support a lot of edits, try with one-two... --Mile (talk) 08:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Santorin (GR), Fira -- 2017 -- 2598.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2017 at 14:23:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others_2
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 14:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 14:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice clean geometric composition, just please fix the moiré on the left chair's back. --cart-Talk 18:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can try it, but I don't think it's moiré. --XRay ^talk 18:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed You're right. I haven't seen the problem yesterday. Moiré removed. --XRay ^talk 15:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I have to demur on this: it's certainly a good photo, but I don't think it's special enough to warrant a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk)
Support The angle, the Greek national colors ... Daniel Case (talk) 06:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel -Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, tending to oppose. The lamp is disturbing, and Santorini is not the whole Greece (one can see these colors almost only in the Cyclades, on tourist advertising posters and on the greek flag...), this is not very far from a "tourist/postcard snapshot" (as often said here) but I find this very inspiring regarding the composition. I think it needs a crop at left, and the blue and dark parts suffer of (chromatic) noise. My vote is provisional, it needs reflexion...--Jebulon (talk) 08:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I kinda like the colour scheme, but I'm not really wowed - I also have this sneaking feeling about the quality; it just doesn't seem quite crisp enough.--Peulle (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do actually think this is exceptional, but I do agree with Jebulon that the lamp disturbs the minimalism. I'd be interested to see it (and its post) cropped out -- Thennicke (talk) 09:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May be. But cropping out the post the table and the chairs are nearly in the middle. IMO that's not the best composition. --XRay ^talk 11:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support nice composition --Pudelek (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 12:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Turnau Hochanger Panorama 20171014.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2017 at 13:14:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria
Info 240° panorama from Hochanger mountain (1,682 metres (5,518 ft)) near Turnau, Styria, Austria. ATTENTION: this file is really huge! --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome piece. I was wondering if it was a little overexposed but on second thought I don't think it is. The sharpness is good and the depth is amazing; you can really see everything from birds to bonfires, from ravines to logging tracks. As for the size, well, you know it's a big image when I have to open it on my gaming rig. :) --Peulle (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Brilliant technically I'm sure, but it crashed my PC. We need a better way to assess these panoramas. And why so much grass in the foreground? Charles (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I propose to cut off the lowest part with the unsharp grass --Llez (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though I'd like to see how it looks with some of the grass cropped out. Charles, did you use the zoom viewer? I used the non-flash one and didn't have a problem this time. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 20:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Impressive size. A pity that it is not 360°. The unsharp bottom ruins FP to me at the moment. --Milseburg (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Past a certain point, you can't get more resolution (due to diffraction) without having the foreground being unsharp. There's always focus stacking, but technologically we're not yet at the point that we should demand it for all such FPs. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support crazy --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Capricorn4049 (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Llez (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pogled od Crn kamen Jablanica.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2017 at 08:11:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Ptahhotep - uploaded by Ptahhotep - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great depth.--Peulle (talk) 10:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Мирослав Видрак (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 20:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't know. Colors seem a bit off to me and the lighting appears rather dull --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In this image, the eyes are guided towards the mountain in the centre but unfortunately, that's where the haze is. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others -- Thennicke (talk) 09:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others -- 晴空·和岩讨论页·反互煮 03:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. --Karelj (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Santorin (GR), Exomytis, Vlychada Beach -- 2017 -- 2999 (bw).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2017 at 22:42:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Greece
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 22:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 22:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! --Basotxerri (talk) 05:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Lovely! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Strange noise pattern in the sky. Since it's not present in the color original, I assume it must be the result of adding contrast in post. I do love the effect the contrast gives, but maybe tweaking it a bit and/or adding NR could help with the situation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Thank you for your advice. I've added some noise reduction in the sky. --XRay ^talk 07:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Not as dramatic as before, but still an FP for me in terms of wow factor. Whenever you try to pull contrast out of nothing, increased noise and/or posterization is the inevitable result; usually it's from pushing shadows, but mapping from a very narrow range in the highlights to a much wider range of tones can lead to this as well. Taking into account the improvement in image quality this is a better version than before. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~* weak oppose~~ it's a great image - but the sky still ruins it for me. Sorry! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me why the sky ruins it. --XRay ^talk 07:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support It doesn't. Any more. :-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Info @Johann Jaritz, Basotxerri, Ikan Kekek, King of Hearts, and Martin Falbisoner: There was too much noise in the sky. Now I've uploaded a new development, softer and with less noise. --XRay ^talk 08:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Even better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Si Señor! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 03:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This rocks! Daniel Case (talk) 06:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Turbo petholatus 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2017 at 04:12:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 04:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 04:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Extraordinary, and probably the best shell picture I've seen from you so far. Really pretty shell, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 09:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support quality. Charles (talk) 11:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great colours.--Peulle (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely greens ... Daniel Case (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice colors --Mile (talk) 10:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as always. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great handling of colors and sharpness. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 10:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cirsium vulgare. Uitgebloeide Speerdistel Cirsium vulgare in verval.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2017 at 07:18:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Cirsium vulgare #Family Asteraceae.
Info Cirsium vulgare. Seed Boxes of Cirsium vulgare in decay. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 09:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 01:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The light is very uniform and the plant just blends into the background - no wow for me -- Thennicke (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The plant is sharp but it's like Thennike says, sorry, the image seems a bit flat. However I could imagine that the background could be improved. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral As I'm implicated in the image preparation, I prefer to be neutral because I'd like to hear others if it's good enough now. In any case I hope you like it better! --Basotxerri (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ - I agree with the other opposers: There isn't sufficient contrast between the plant and the background for it to stand out sufficiently, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per opposition --Mile (talk) 09:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Background was enhanced by Basotxerri. Thank you very much for this!--Famberhorst (talk) 13:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thennicke, Thennicke, Ikan Kekek, Ikan Kekek, PetarM, and Mile: Background was enhanced by Basotxerri

Comment Its still problem, lower half isnt in focus. Just needs stacking or parallel shot. --Mile (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It looks to me like the entire photo was darkened. I'm not sure I can support that. However, I've struck my oppose vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bit brighter now. But there's more than only darkening: more contrast and saturation, too. Maybe it's not good enough, though. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is a problem with the scene itself - the plant is nearly the same colour as the background, so it still doesn't wow me. Compare to this for example, where there is more of a distinction between the colours and between the textures (the background is more blurred) -- Thennicke (talk) 03:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, no reason for FP. --Karelj (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Common black-hawk (Buteogallus anthracinus gundlachii).JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2017 at 09:28:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support So the lens is not broken...but that one with lions, worth to go back and try again. --Mile (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think heat haze followed by poor post-processing to sort it did for the lions! Charles (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alandmanson (talk) 05:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, too much photoshoped. I prefer the original!!! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Llez (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Santorin (GR), Exomytis, Marina Exomitis-Vlychada -- 2017 -- 2823.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2017 at 05:08:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water_transport#Boats
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 05:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 05:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A schoolbook example of geometric shapes but regretfully there are some disturbing elements: busy background, the shadow across the cabin and the cut text. Sorry. --cart-Talk 12:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I think you're right. Thank you. --XRay ^talk 13:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /XRay ^talk 13:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kia Stonic covered, IAA 2017, Frankfurt (1Y7A2536).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2017 at 18:05:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
Info all by MB-one -- MB-one (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator -- MB-one (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Love the color and texture, but it's hard to tell at first what this is. Daniel Case (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would be very nice, but this black thing behind the car at the top of the picture ruins all. -- -donald- (talk) 06:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Piz Grisch Panorama beschriftet.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2017 at 15:55:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info created by Capricorn4049 - uploaded by Capricorn4049 - nominated by Milseburg -- Milseburg (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good quality and exemplary instructive. -- Milseburg (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The weather and the view on that day was exceptional. I am often in the mountains, but I have never experienced before a day where I couldn't see any clouds or mist all around and the view in all directions was > 150 km. --Capricorn4049 (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Your work is amazing! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support-Masterpiece.--Ermell (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful work. As a minor note, I'm not sure if rasterized text is the best way to display this. Perhaps it might be better to embed the JPEG in an SVG and use SVG text. That way, people with visual impairments can still read the text, it will become possible to copy and paste the text, and it can be translated to other languages more easily. dllu (t,c) 01:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per dllu. --Peulle (talk) 10:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per dllu. An example to all of us who take mountain landscape panoramas. Or try to. Daniel Case (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 11:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 13:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Riisa raba varahommikul.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2017 at 20:47:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Estonia
Info all by Kruusamägi (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very special. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful, but I would recommend cropping out the one branch on the right side. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wider panorama would be even better. --Mile (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, please remove the cut-off branch. As Johann says: very special! --Basotxerri (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Kruusamägi (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thank you! --Basotxerri (talk) 08:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The processing is too dark and dingey for my tastes, and the large area of ground in the front ruins the composition - no wow for me -- Thennicke (talk) 00:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Santorin (GR), Exomytis, Marina Exomitis-Vlychada -- 2017 -- 2809.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2017 at 13:27:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water_transport#Water_transport
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 13:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 13:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Better than the other one, but the crops and the unbalanced feel of the composition keep from it from FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I liked the other one better. The crops and composition feel a bit random to me in this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I can follow your arguments. So I withdraw this photograph to nominate another one. Thank you. --XRay ^talk 04:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /XRay ^talk 04:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:South face of the Transamerica Pyramid, 2017.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2017 at 22:27:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by dllu - uploaded by dllu - nominated by Dllu -- dllu (t,c) 22:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- dllu (t,c) 22:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info There exists a similar FP, File:TransAmerica Pyramid.jpg. Compared to that picture, this presently nominated photo:

Is taken from a different face (south instead of west).
Has not been digitally altered to remove the scaffolding, visible on the left.
Has vastly superior image quality thanks to modern equipment. dllu (t,c) 22:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Kind of mesmerizing, and a vast improvement over the old FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 02:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support But seems redundant to keep the old FP - can we delist it or is that bad form? -- Thennicke (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you feel that it's no longer of the quality that we would consider an FP, you can nominate it for delisting on this page, but be prepared for less than unanimous agreement. Also, keep in mind that unlike VIC, where the title of VI is given to only one nominee per scope, on FPC, we don't need to pick only the best photo of a motif for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 16:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support We can certainly have both of these as FPs. Daniel Case (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 05:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 06:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support WClarke 17:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 11:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 13:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Prismo345 (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 12:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Παναγία Πορταρέα 3816.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2017 at 21:07:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info All by C messier -- C messier (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The small square where the church of Panagia Portarea is located. Apart from the church, it also features the funerary monument of Pantazis Anast. Zoulia. The church dates from the 16th century and is built by stone, including the roof top, a characteristic of the traditional architecture of Pelion, Greece. Support -- C messier (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Special mood, captured very well. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice color pass, from white to yellow. Compo also well. --Mile (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought this was a painting when I saw it at thumbnail size. -- Thennicke (talk) 12:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little busy but I like the evening mood. Daniel Case (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ---Pudelek (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing of interesting more distort and the light on the right is very disturbing.....this is one of the best pic in commons? --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with Livio that the light on the right is disturbing. I would prefer for it to be cropped out, and see that as preferable to leaving a generous amount of room to the right of the fence around the monument. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 07:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Topi (Damaliscus lunatus topi) female.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2017 at 08:44:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 08:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 08:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Peulle (talk) 10:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 16:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support a straightforward, very well-lit wildlife pic. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pleasant to look at; nice picture -- Thennicke (talk) 10:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 19:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 05:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dunnottar Castle dt 2017 36.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2017 at 11:18:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#United Kingdom
Info created by Dirtsc - uploaded by Dirtsc - nominated by Dirtsc -- Dirtsc (talk) 11:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dirtsc (talk) 11:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe border between the lawn and the house is a little strange-- 晴空·和岩讨论页·反互煮 15:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I want to support this but the crop on the right hand side is very narrow -- Thennicke (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per others; also note weird border on left roofline. Daniel Case (talk) 01:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017.01.21.-09-Paradiski-La Plagne--Vanoise Express-Blick Richtung Les Arcs.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2017 at 19:00:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful, and I love the mood this puts me in. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a QI HalfGig talk 01:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request And why? Just a QI. is no reason, it is like I don't like it. BTW, it isn't a QI because I didn't nominate it as a QIC. --Hockei (talk) 07:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HalfGig: I'm still waiting for you valid reason. --Hockei (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a valid reason. I've many opposes like "just a QI for me". Did you complain about those? HalfGig talk 01:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the guidline what reasons are for oposes. What a conclusion can be pulled out of Just a QI.? --Hockei (talk) 11:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The same as all the other people who used this rationale. HalfGig talk 02:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously you don't know your own reason yourself. How ever, it makes no sense to discuss with an unwilling to learn child. --Hockei (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Might be a little busy, but captures that feeling of anticipating a great day on the slopes. Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too busy for me -- Thennicke (talk) 03:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The funicular (capacity almost 200 people) and the ski resort what I show here is busy, yes. It is in the nature of things. --Hockei (talk) 07:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have been more specific. The composition is too busy for me. And unbalanced, with more "stuff" on the right than the left. -- Thennicke (talk) 09:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Thennicke --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 04:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gobierno Estatal de Baviera, Múnich, Alemania, 2017-07-07, DD 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2017 at 17:11:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Bayerische Staatskanzlei (Bavarian State Chancellery), Munich, Germany. The building, erected from 1989 to 1993 after a work of architect Ludwig Mellinger, houses the personal offices of the chancellery staff. The equestrian statue in front of the building honors Duke Otto I Wittelsbach. All by me, Poc o² 17:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 17:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent, restful, and the streaming clouds really help draw the viewer's attention to and from the building. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support great, I really do envy you for your 11mm lense --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose just boring --Bahnmoeller (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. A bit less sharp than I'd prefer especially on the sides, but beautiful lighting and clouds. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King. Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Heavy CAs at the people on the left side under the trees, also some perspective distorsion on the right and the left --Llez (talk) 13:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Llez: I have uploaded a new version but to be honest, I wouldn't had called that a "heavy CA". Regarding the distortion I find it normal for this kind of subject with a 11 mm lens and don't find that disturbing --Poc o² 22:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think one-point perspective is a good use for a super wide angle lens like this. I am concerned the lens might be slightly out of alignment since the left side of the image has much worse sagittal resolution than the right. dllu (t,c) 00:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk)

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

File:Kizhi 06-2017 img11 Lazarus Resurrection Church.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2017 at 13:00:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info Church of the Resurrection of St. Lazarus on Kizhi Island, Karelia, Russia - all by A.Savin --A.Savin 13:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 13:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tempered support I wish that blue string weren't there, but it's not that noticeable. Daniel Case (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HalfGig talk 01:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 08:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 21:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 12:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 13:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 01:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Already voted? --A.Savin 15:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 04:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Flamenco andino 03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2017 at 14:49:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Phoenicoparrus
Info created by Fedaro - uploaded by Fedaro - nominated by Fedaro -- fedaro (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- fedaro (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is it possible to have a bit more contrast? Nice image but the current processing is very dull -- Thennicke (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now -- Thennicke (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I wouldn't promote at QI. Charles (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from contrast/tone or whatever, back of bird is over-exposed and leg is moving (blurred). Charles (talk) 11:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Thennicke Daniel Case (talk) 01:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could have a bit more contrast. But the composition wowed me very much. --Hockei (talk) 07:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose watter should be reflexed --Mile (talk) 08:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 19:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 04:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alexander Hamilton Custom House Collector's Room ceiling (40511s).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2017 at 22:16:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info all by me — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ceiling in the Collector's Office in the former U.S. Custom House in Manhattan. I was taken by this ceiling, designed by Tiffany Studios and incorporating some seaport/nautical themes, the first time I visited during Open House New York (an annual open-doors weekend/public architecture event). At the time, I had only a smartphone camera. This year, I went back determined to get a better shot. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wish the tones were consistent throughout, but there wasn't anything you could do about it and it wasn't for lack of trying. Daniel Case (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination to nominate different version — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Europa Upper Stage University of Stuttgart 05.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2017 at 13:09:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Space exploration
Info created and uploaded by Julian Herzog - nominated by me -- Thennicke (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice and useful Ezarateesteban 22:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI maybe, but nothing out of the ordinary enough for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel. Poc o² 13:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Thennicke (talk) 00:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Полог под море од облаци.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2017 at 11:30:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Clouds
Info created by Petrovnik - uploaded by Petrovnik - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice scene, maybe I would vote for it if the image was sharper overall but unfortunately it isn't. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose} per Basotxerri. Daniel Case (talk) 02:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:El Castillo Stitch 2008 Edit 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2017 at 03:55:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Architecture
Info created and uploaded by User:Fcb981 - nominated by me -- Thennicke (talk) 03:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 03:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm impressed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Peulle (talk) 07:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Surely this type of image demands better clouds and fewer people? The FP on Spanish Wikipedia has the people removed. And there are already 4 FPs of this pyramid. Charles (talk) 11:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of the FPs by User:Dschwen - they are better images. I wouldn't have nominated this if I'd seen them first, so I would like to withdraw this nom. -- Thennicke (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination -- Thennicke (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:CumulonimbusMexicoP1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2017 at 02:45:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cumulonimbus, taken from a cabin windows

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created by User:Cvmontuy - uploaded by Cvmontuy - nominated by -- Cvmontuy (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cvmontuy (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Those are some pretty impressive clouds. -- Thennicke (talk) 05:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I wasn't thinking FP when I promoted it at QIC, but taking a closer look, I agree that it is. Excellent capture and composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you explain the blue and brown colour tint? Are you looking down on the clouds or across at them? I can't figure out how the clouds could get such deep colour naturally. -- Colin (talk) 06:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And appears to be heavily processed -very soft. Charles (talk) 08:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The picture was taken from the interior of a commercial flight From Mexico-City to Villahermosa Tabasco, then

Using Raw therapee

The overexposed control was moved until some points reach white

The black control was moved until some points reach black

Noise was reduced this makes the picture a little bit softer

Temperature was change from 5024 to 5820 (I just move the control until I get a more pleasent colors)

Using Gimp

I separate the channels acording to luminosity, on dark chanel I move the color curve to add more light and more contrast

I add more contrast to the final picture.

--Cvmontuy (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cvmontuy, when processing clouds, it's very rare that you want any of the pixels to be actually black. If I were you I would make the darkest point in this image a "realistic-looking" dark grey -- Thennicke (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. I don't find this realistic. As Thennicke notes, not all scenes have pure white and pure black in them, so it often isn't appropriate to stretch the exposure to these limits -- high key and low key scenes for example. I think the "wow" here is really the artificial over-processing of the cloud contrast, rather than reality. And the blue/brown colours are more likely to be from adjusting temperature and/or artefacts of pushing the contrast too much. -- Colin (talk) 10:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 10:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I too like to photograph clouds and it is always very tempting to process them just a liiitle bit more since they look so cool then. Just to see what would happen, I took this photo and followed some of your processing described above (The overexposed control was moved until some points reach white. The black control was moved until some points reach black. Plus added some contrast.). I also cropped it so that the curves would not be disturbed by the ground structures. The result came out something like the nominated photo and it looks very cool but hardly natural. To get to the level displayed here, I would have to process much more. Sorry, but I can't support a cloud photo so heavily processed. Bring it back to normal, please. --cart-Talk 16:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

W.carter and Thennicke, thanks for your comments I have uploaded another set of pictures starting with the unprocessed at File:CumulonimbusMexicoRaw2JPG.jpg please let me know if you still think is overprocessed, (the main color difference was due to the temperature for this new version I use 7000), the versions of this files comes from raw file to the processed version using gimp, if you like more the new version should I start a new voting? --Cvmontuy (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a pretty big step between the original and any of the processed versions. The second version is not convincing me either. If you want to nominate another version of this, you could add it as an "Alt version" here on this nomination. I'm sure you've seen how that works before. --cart-Talk 19:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per cart. An interesting idea as far as processing goes, but in this case the clouds are just too chaotic and random for me. Daniel Case (talk) 06:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with D. Case --Mile (talk) 10:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Cvmontuy (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:2013.05.18.-28-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim-Vierfleck-Weibchen.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2017 at 19:54:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Libellulidae (Skimmers)
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose abdomen blurred and partly obscured. Charles (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see obscured parts. --Hockei (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't? Really? Try looking towards the end of the abdomen. Charles (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should think twice before writing. What you mean is the bokeh. The abdomen goes into the unsharpnes. What you expressed "... partly obscured." sounds like a technical quality issue. --Hockei (talk) 11:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I realise English is not your native language, but in Englsh, obscured just means hidden as in hidden behind a leaf. I should have used hidden. Charles (talk) 11:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. I've no translation in this direction. --Hockei (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Charles. --Mile (talk) 08:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
--Hockei (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:SHB-Red-Dust.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2017 at 03:53:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info The Sydney Harbour Bridge during the 2009 Australian dust storms. I've categorised as historical because there's an argument to be had about whether this is a "natural phenomena".
Info created and uploaded by John Byrne, nominated by me -- Thennicke (talk) 03:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 03:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is interesting, should be more panoramic, bottom crop, but wont see. --Mile (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. I'm nominating it because of the wow of the content of the image, not any wow from a compositional point of view -- Thennicke (talk) 13:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks like something from a movie ... Daniel Case (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 05:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alandmanson (talk) 05:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Prismo345 (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 09:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

Image:Casa primeros habitantes.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2017 at 21:54:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<licancabur>]]
Info created by fedaro - uploaded by fedaro - nominated by [[User:{{subst:fedaro}}|]] -- fedaro (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- fedaro (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- fedaro: Please add a category above. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't really understand what this is supposed to be a picture of, and the composition doesn't work for me. Daniel Case (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, no wow at all. --Karelj (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
InfoThe photo tries to illustrate the concept. that the first inhabitants of the desert, aligned the fire with the volcano Licancabur, it is not easy to show in a photo the interior and exterior.--fedaro (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technical issues.--Peulle (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is easy to show the interior and exterior: by using HDR. Besides that, nothing is sharp. --Llez (talk) 03:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iglesia de Ntra. Sra. de la Junquera, Luesma, Zaragoza, España, 2017-01-04, DD 60.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2017 at 09:00:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
Info Church of Our Lady of La Junquera, Luesma, Zaragoza, Spain. While the church is of Baroque style, the bell tower is of Mudéjar style. The church was erected in the 16th century and was reformed until the 17th century. All by me, Poc o² 09:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was hunting monuments in Spain with no free-license image in the web and came across this one. I was amazed about the location where this church was erected. Poc o² 09:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really striking. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Poco a poco: Could you remove the CAs on the left handside? --Basotxerri (talk) 10:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Basotxerri: Done, thanks. Poc o² 11:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 11:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support And good composition -- Thennicke (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Compo, centering isnt so favourable here. Third would work. --Mile (talk) 08:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 05:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 15:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Maman de Louise Bourgeois - Bilbao.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2017 at 10:25:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
Info created by Archaeodontosaurus - uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I saw this by accident and I think it's good enough to be a FP. --Basotxerri (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This picture has some imperfections, but the moment was rare. He had just made a thunderstorm light was unusual and above all there was no one. I found myself alone in front of Maman. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's one of the points. Besides the composition, the interesting lighting and the for Bilbao very representive wet ground, I like the absence of people which isn't easy to get these days. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support There may be some imperfections, but with a creature right out of War of the Worlds and lighting from Blade Runner the wow is huge! I would also have nominated it if I had found it first. --cart-Talk 17:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Big wow! --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's a nice capture, but image quality is suffering in the background (not a huge problem though) and the processing is not particularly impressive - dark and low in contrast (reducing the "wow"). Do you have a RAW file for this image? I'd love to have a play with it if you do -- Thennicke (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Archaeodontosaurus: What do you think, would it be possible? --Basotxerri (talk) 06:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to search but I have to remember and it's the most difficult. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too noisy. Especially dark noise. There are many artefacts. --Hockei (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like it for the same reasons cart does, and so many more, but I would like to be able to see the metadata on this image so we have some idea if it might be improved more in processing. Daniel Case (talk) 03:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wow for the sculpture, not for the photo. The bad weather and light pollution has made for a ugly brown overcast sky. The subject is also confused with the background at this angle. File:Bilbao Guggenheim (28746928753).jpg has a better angle and light, though shame it doesn't capture the whole creature. (Please embed a colour profile too). -- Colin (talk) 12:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Disturbing background, probably from another angle this pictuce could be much better. --Karelj (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice shot and mood. --Selbymay (talk) 12:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposers --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Palace of St. Michael and St. George, Corfu - September 2017.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2017 at 14:20:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture#Greece
Info Palace of St. Michael and St. George with statue of Frederick Adam, Corfu; all by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A somewhat complex motif, and the combination of its elements is restful for the eyes. The sky and plants help, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's one of those scenes that calls for a symmetrical composition, but that darned plant on the left seems to prevent it. I'll have to think about my vote -- Thennicke (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Definitely a QI, but that bush in the front just upsets the compositional harmony too much for me. Daniel Case (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel Case. Perhaps there were other FPs to be had from this building, but not this view IMO -- Thennicke (talk) 05:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hawaii's Stryker Brigade soldiers conduct realistic combined live fire exercise 120920-F-MQ656-684.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2017 at 06:43:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Tech. Sgt. Michael Holzworth - uploaded by Fæ - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find a special atmosphere, both surreal and very realistic. -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. The sharpening radius used is way too high here, but overall the atmosphere is too great to not support. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing of interesting for me....sorry --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral In photographic terms of course this is a great picture but I'm against this military stuff. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many people don't like spiders for example and support it because of the brilliance of the picture.

--Hockei (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't get me wrong, I just wanted to express my personal feeling about it. The image is spectacular and I understand everyone who votes for it. --Basotxerri (talk) 08:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support Great picture. Anyway weak because it looks like the camara-jpg and as KOH. --Hockei (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support per Hockei. --Peulle (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because of image quality, unfortunately. I like the dirt at the bottom though -- Thennicke (talk) 01:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think the quality of the photo of the soldier is good enough. The background doesn't need to be sharp and is probably better this way, for poetic reasons: To demonstrate how disturbed the environment is by these war games. And I find the image compelling. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Need some exposure. --Mile (talk) 08:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark, a little oversharpened and the tree in the background is distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Hockei. --cart-Talk 16:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 19:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 04:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]