Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/October 2020

File:Collina presso Nagasaki, bozzetto di Alexandre Bailly, Marcel Jambon per Madama Butterfly (1906) - Archivio Storico Ricordi ICON000079 - Restoration.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2020 at 03:41:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Entertainment
Info created by Alexandre Bailly and Marcel Jambon - restored and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Info One of the first restorations - I think - from the recent collaboration with the Archivo Storico Ricordi. One issue: I'm pretty sure - and have sources to confirm - that it's actually Marcel Jambon - at least in modern spelling: back in the early 1900s it as a lot more common to change name spellings for different countries. I'm checking with the Wikimedian in Residence about that. It shouldn't matter at all, but would mean that this page and the file page will move to reflect that if it checks out. I'm listing by initials in the meantime. Edit:Yep. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's quite nice. I'm kind of astonished that someone would do such a nice watercolor of a stage design. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Different set designers used different media, but set designs, at least the old-school ones, could occasionally be stunning artworks their own right. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cmao20 (talk) 01:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Buidhe (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 03:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kehtna Kutsehariduskeskus 005-kokad pano.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2020 at 22:06:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People at work
Info created by Lauri Veerde - uploaded & nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome. High educational value. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing to look at with the 360° viewer. Technically the weak side is a high level of noise in the 2D version, but considering the huge resolution (18,384 × 9,192 pixels), for an interior shot where the moving subjects are rather sharp and the DoF generous, I think 1600 ISO is forgivable. Very interesting document -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect. -- -donald- (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I wish I could create such a spectacular panoramic! MartinD (talk) 07:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really impressive, also really good image quality. --Aristeas (talk) 09:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely brilliant. A fascinating scene which takes several minutes to fully explore. It's well exposed, and has nice bursts of colour in amongst the chrome. The image is surprisingly noisy at 100%, but by the time the image is stretched to 100% it would be absolutely huge (nearly seven [4K 34-inch] monitors high and more than seven wide) so I see no real problem there. I can easily imagine seeing this in the Picture Of The Day box on the main page. --Bobulous (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support High encyclopedic value --StellarHalo (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 00:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support On the weak side technically, but great fun to view in the 360 viewer. Cmao20 (talk) 01:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting scene but the quality is low below FP IMHO in comparison to other shots of this kind, sorry Ivo Poco a poco (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Capricorn4049 (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mode Gakuen Cocoon Tower in the evening with blue sky Tokyo Japan.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2020 at 06:21:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Japan
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nexo20 (talk) 08:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support simple and effective. --MB-one (talk) 09:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the tower and the dome - good current-day architecture, which is rare and nice to see. However, the overall composition is not great to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nothing wrong with the composition for me. --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not Basile's fault; I just feel like the buildings to the left and right damage the composition. I'm not surprised no-one else agrees so far, though, and this is certainly a very high-quality depiction of the featured building. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice picture. I might have wished for slightly more interesting light, but still, really good quality. Cmao20 (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Your review might be in agreement with StellarHalo's and Daniel's, below. What's special with this light in my view is the blue and turquoise gradient reflection on the glass facade, at the end of the day. I can't find such shades of colors when the light is stronger. Still I agree the sun doesn't directly hit the building. And thus the architecture might be very interesting also under other light conditions. Thanks everyone for the feedbacks -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Special lines game for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful building! —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support not really bothered by the other buildings but a bit dark for my taste --StellarHalo (talk) 02:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Stellar above. I'd really like to see this complemented by something from the same angle but in full daylight, like this (I wouldn't support that image for FP because of the distracting foreground elements, but I see the potential for an FP in that lighting). Daniel Case (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eichhörnchen - Sciurus vulgaris IMG 1320.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2020 at 16:59:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Rodentia/Fam.Sciuridea/Sciurus vulgaris
Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shame that the tail is cut at the bottom, but a special photo to me. Cmao20 (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is OK, but the weird background ruins it. Squirrel is a common and easy-to-capture species; one may expect a more special picture to promote it as FP. (And I would certainly add the geocode and more precise categories, by the way.) --A.Savin 17:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As stated above – the background is interfering too much with the subject. Also the tail is unaesthetically cropped at the bottom. --GeXeS (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite nice, but per GeXeS. --Peulle (talk) 08:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really cute, but oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Fischer.H (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Water Palace, Jaipur.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2020 at 07:28:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#India
Info created by Dey.sandip - uploaded by Dey.sandip - nominated by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on technical grounds. How this made it through QIC I have no idea, but there's no way this is an FP with this extreme perspective warp. Both sides are leaning in heavily.--Peulle (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I usually don't comment on my nomination, but felt I needed to state what I think. Heard this familiar boring argument about perspective many times now in FPC. Is it a rule that images need to have a certain kind of perspective to be acceptable here? In fact, this is the natural perspective that a wide angle lens like the one used will produce. Correcting that is rather an anamoly if you care to think differently. At the end of the day, this is a picture as seen and captured by camera and not your eyes. Hence the argument about perspective is very debatable. It seems that this FPC has long become a rule driven (and these are perceived too by some) place where anything much deviating is always opposed. What you do this way is you not only kill the nomination (now, a bunch of others will follow suite and just say "per blah blah" and get done) but also the spirit. Partly, the reason I had stopped nominating images here. -- Dey.sandip (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the Guidelines to see what I'm referring to. Under distortions, it says: "Perspective distortion should either have a purpose or be insignificant." That is not the case here.--Peulle (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That statement itself is debatable and subject to personal interpretations, how do you define what is an acceptable purpose of perspective distortion ? In my case, I think the distortion here adds a certain visual style to the photograph and certainly it looks nice to many (people here or outside commons). What makes that a purpose not acceptable ? Should that be sufficient ground for rejection? I don't think it's a very strong reason to put an oppose, unless common wisdom conditioned reviewers here to think in that certain way. It does not matter whether this image becomes an FP or not, in the broader setting that's even negligible, but we should encourage different interpretations and perspectives for better inclusivity of all images. --Dey.sandip (talk) 06:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When judging these images, each user is free to make their own subjective evaluations. So yes, it is sufficient grounds for an oppose. If a lot of people have a different view to that single user's opinion, an image can still be promoted, but that still does not take away that reviewer's prerogative of voting the way they see fit.--Peulle (talk) 10:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nice atmosphere, but per Peulle. --Cayambe (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perspective distortion is OK for me if it's for a specific purpose - in the past I have supported obviously distorted pictures of, say, a building looking upwards. The trouble here is that there is no particular reason why wide-angle lens distortion adds anything to the photograph. Cmao20 (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FYI this may be fixable in Photoshop/Gimp if you're interested (it sounds like you would prefer not to, though). Especially true if the original crop has a little extra room on the left/right. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your suggestion, yes, I am aware of the same. However, at present I don't have such perspective correction softwares with me; you are welcome to try these tools and create a derivative, if you are interested. -- Dey.sandip (talk) 06:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These sloping verticals are not a feature of the wide-angle-lens, but arise because the camera is tilted up (towards the sun/birds) rather than kept level. And, yes, the eye sees distorted verticals if we look up too (though you have to fight your brain to notice them). But the big difference is that when the eye looks back down, as you would if looking directly at the three buildings here, the distortion goes away. But a photo's perspective doesn't shift as you change your viewpoint. So if we want this to look natural, we are stuck looking at the sun and the birds and only seeing the buildings out of the corner of our eyes. Which might be a perfectly valid artistic intention. But I think you could have taken this photo with the camera level and the atmosphere would have been the same, and without the disturbing distortion. So, I think that's why folks are unconvinced. While the birds are nice in silhouette, the buildings are a bit small/dark in the frame and not detailed, with the backlighting not helping here. -- Colin (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination -- Dey.sandip (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gebarsten bolster van een paardenkastanje (Aesculus) 20-09-2020 (d.j.b.) 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2020 at 17:44:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Sapindaceae
Info Cracked skin of a Aesculus . Focus stack of 22 photos.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful image, to my eye. The rough, spiky shell is a little blurred on its nearest side, but this works for me because it actually gives more focus to the shiny conker hiding inside, which does look immaculately sharp. The blend of colours is beautiful, the texture is fascinating, and image as a whole feels natural and informative. --Bobulous (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree the blurred part works (explanation below) -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Bobulous' thoughtful review. Cmao20 (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SupportSeven Pandas (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 08:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture! I would have gotten around to nominating it if you hadn't. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support To avoid blurred frames, I recommend to shoot at least two different series from same spot. --Ivar (talk) 10:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support At first sight an impression of déjà-vu, but I think this picture is different enough, and above all better. Only "weak" support due to the focus stacking issue. I really don't find this blurred foreground successful, because the spines in front are sharp, the conker is sharp, only the middle is a weird out-of-focus area. Why?? A continuity of sharpness with enough details would have been more than welcome here. Fortunately the problem is not too big, but still noticeable. 22 pictures should have been far enough to cover the subject, thus I suppose a technical problem here, either some frames missing, or a few bad shots within the batch. Apart from that, good light and adequate bokeh -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support You have to put the focus point manually in front of the object to get everything in focus. If you take the AF, there is usually something missing in the front.--Ermell (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Palauenc05 (talk) 06:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sunflower and a bee.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2020 at 19:17:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice capture Cmao20 (talk) 01:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! But could the category for the species of bee please be added? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely! --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bee is not very clear given the size of the flower. [Category:Bees on flowers] has much better images. --Tagooty (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please add geocode or shooting place. --Ivar (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice shot; and it also reminds me of the logo of MediaWiki! Ahmad^talk 15:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because location not added, this should not be very hard thing to do. --Ivar (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Austria Bundesadler.svg (delist), delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2020 at 23:14:14

Info This version is actually pretty close to how the Austrian government depicts the the coat of arm of Austria in official setting. But, that does not change the fact that this digital version is a rather low-quality and cheap interpretation of the original created in 1984. In fact, this ones looks much worse compared to the original with a lot of the details on the wings and the hammer/sickle missing. Then there is the fact that this is nothing special compared to other coats of arms of other countries around the world. As far as coats of arms and armorials of republics go, the graphic quality of the coats of arms of United States, Poland, Chile, Latvia, Mexico, Trinidad and Tobago, and Dominica each easily blows this one out of the water. (Original nomination)
Delist Failure to stand out means that it is not one of the finest images on here. The Great Seal of the US is just much better and more worthy of FP status. -- StellarHalo (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nomination. Cmao20 (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nomination. --Milseburg (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom Buidhe (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above. --Kreuz schnabel 06:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom. Daniel Case (talk) 03:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom. --Cayambe (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 8 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /--A.Savin 13:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Le Château-Musée départemental de Sceaux, Journées du Patrimoine 2020.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2020 at 07:14:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#France
Info created by Jean-Pierre Dalbéra (Flickr) - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 07:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 07:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kreuz schnabel 08:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but the composition is not good at all as the entire building is leaning to the right. --Andrei (talk) 10:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All those tourists spoil it, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good QI but I would prefer a more centred photo and the tourists do spoil it a bit. Cmao20 (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others --StellarHalo (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 09:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Good image. But I think the building should be more or much less centered. --Augustgeyler (talk) 10:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not bothered by the tourists ... there aren't really enough to distract from the building. I also like that in closeup we can see many of them are (as they should be) wearing masks. And that makes me like this picture even more ... this diverse group of people are not letting a global pandemic stop them from appreciating high culture. Daniel Case (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Shagil Kannur (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spiti River Kaza Himachal Jun18 D72 7232.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2020 at 06:05:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#India
Info created by Tagooty - uploaded by Tagooty - nominated by Tagooty -- Tagooty (talk) 06:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Spiti River, Himachal. Elev. 3,600m (11,811') Tagooty (talk) 06:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kritzolina (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No gallery set = no vote from me. --Peulle (talk) 07:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done @Peulle: Gallery set --Tagooty (talk) 09:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Image quality not outstanding but still, a very wow-y landscape for me. Cmao20 (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support The lighting/colors are not great, but the composition is superb. Perhaps this could work better as B&W. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't know about B&W, otherwise I agree with KoH -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ReneeWrites (talk) 11:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Shagil Kannur (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per KoH. --Aristeas (talk) 08:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Landscapes with braided rivers and their floodplains bring back nice memories for me ... I am pleasantly surprised that this view is from India, not the Arctic, although of course stream braiding can also occur like this in high mountainous regions. Daniel Case (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:3 Broadgate.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2020 at 20:10:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#United_Kingdom
Info all by Bobulous -- Bobulous (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is suitably sharp and striking, but let's see what the Commoners think. -- Bobulous (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very pretty building. However, the whites on the building at the top right are overexposed, and the blue channel is clipped everywhere including the sky. Also, the bottom left corner is slightly distracting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. The building certainly has the 'wow-factor' and the image quality is fairly good. I also like the people because they give a sense of scale. But could you perhaps go back to the RAW and darken the sky? The blown highlights in the sky on the left at the moment are easily fixable from RAW and they make it sub-FP to me. (there are blown highlights on the building at the right too) Cmao20 (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice composition and a beautiful building per KoH. If you dial the sliders back on the overexposure on the right and fix some CA on edges on that building, I would support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've switched from DPP to RawTherapee and produced a second version with reconstructed highlights, but the Wikimedia Commons "Upload file" page keeps giving an error (but only after four minutes, which is the amount of time it takes my connection to upload a 36MiB file). So I'm trying to get the new version in place, but it's proving difficult. --Bobulous (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. There's definitely an FP here though; I'd get a little closer or crop tighter to get rid of that planter (The two men I can live with, though some people here probably wouldn't). I like the front of the building; it makes me say "Sir, it looks like someone cut the building open to steal our pipe organ!") Daniel Case (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've been fighting for days to try to get a replacement uploaded, but I get a Wikimedia error every time (reported in T247454). Even regenerated and alternate versions lead to failure, so Wikimedia really doesn't want the file to be replaced. (Can we count that as a vote of support from Wikimedia for the current version?) --Bobulous (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Korovai 2020 G1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2020 at 16:47:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Bread
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Looks appetising. The highlights are a little bit blown but still, good photo. Cmao20 (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor composition, lots of distracting elements on the sides. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For a food photo, I prefer a composition that is much closer from a better angle and shows more of the food itself --StellarHalo (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm disappointed in the voting so far. I really like this photo and saw it as an FP in QIC. I consider the composition very good at full-page size. The cake and decorations are festive and pretty and I think the DoF is good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacks wow, blown highlights (even the red ribbon), table seems to lean to the left. Merits a QI surely but nothing extraordinary IMHO. --Kreuz schnabel 18:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuzschnabel. --Fischer.H (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per insufficient focus in some areas; I also think it would have worked better cropped in more tightly on the cake. Daniel Case (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Purpurreiher beim Nestbau, NSG Wagbachniederung.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2020 at 19:55:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes#Genus_:_Ardea
Info created - uploaded by Dieter Wermbter - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Only 6 Mpx but very interesting action -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile. Cmao20 (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Could be bigger and sharper, but it wins my vote because it's such interesting documentation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 05:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile.--Peulle (talk) 12:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Cayambe (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile. --Aristeas (talk) 08:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Supermarket in recife, pernambuco, Brazil.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2020 at 17:43:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! I'm interested to know what is in those cans... :-) —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it`s Canned fish :) --Wilfredor (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 06:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colours are everything. Cmao20 (talk) 14:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 14:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, IMO not sharp enough. The writing on the cans of the upper shelf and partly of the middle shelf is not readable. --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crossed out after improvement. --Palauenc05 (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Palauenc. It’s really a nice idea but then, an FPC of a static, well-lit subject with no great difficulties should be crisp sharp, and this is less than 10 megapixels. --Kreuz schnabel 17:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Palauenc. --Fischer.H (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Isiwal (talk) 09:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Palauenc05, Kreuzschnabel, Fischer.H, and Isiwal: Thanks for the feedback, I uploaded another version, please take new look and confirm if it's ok --Wilfredor (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support While I see the softness (and I am normally a sharpness fan), I still love this image for its great colour impression and the overall idea and do not miss more sharpness at all. --Aristeas (talk) 11:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas Daniel Case (talk) 06:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Shagil Kannur (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 10:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional oppose It's beautiful and technically not the sharpest but ok, however the perspective is slightly off. If you fix the horizontal lines (mainly visible on the bottom) then you have my support. --Trougnouf (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:WLM - 2020 - Пам'ятник Володимиру Великому увечері.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2020 at 14:03:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Ukraine
Info created by Moahim - uploaded by Moahim - nominated by Augustgeyler -- Augustgeyler (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I found that picture at quality image nomination and got really impressed by its exposure and composition -- Augustgeyler (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think this is a very long-exposure photo and it has introduced some weird blurriness in the leaves and the clouds. The light is exceptional, but I think the long-exposure nature of the pic has made it look a little unnatural. Cmao20 (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Long exposure with wind seldom makes for a great combination. Blurry leaves at the top, blurry at the left, and blurry at the right. Heavy halos around the street lights and lack of details in the blown areas. I don't see a main subject in this composition, and I want to step over the fence -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Nice mood but too unclear on the subject. Supposed the monument is the subject (considering the file name), then it’s too small and soft. I’d try a tighter crop (take another exposure for that, don’t crop this image) as suggested. --Kreuz schnabel 18:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile. Too many blurry parts and since the subject is the monument judging from the description, the prominent trees ruin the composition. --StellarHalo (talk) 02:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much blurred image parts. --Fischer.H (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao. Even without the blur there is a weirdly compressed look to the top. Daniel Case (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dry-sand Zen garden made of beige stripes a sunny day at Higashiyama Jisho-ji Buddhist temple Ginkaku-ji Kyoto Japan.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2020 at 01:16:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Japan
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 07:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition. Cmao20 (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful contrast between the dry-sand Zen garden and the rich greens of the background. --Aristeas (talk) 09:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:London - Wimbledon - 3065.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2020 at 21:08:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Sports#Individual_sports
Info created by Jorgeroyan - uploaded by Jorgeroyan - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cmao20 (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, it's fun but the edited areas (everything around the guy and his shadow) is too obvious and I'm not really convinced about the compo/crop, specially at the bottom, sorry. This pictures is based on photoshop editing, please, add the Retouched template, too. --Poco a poco (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Poco. Funny idea but the photoshopping is too obvious IMHO, there are blurry areas around the guy in some of his incarnations. Surely not an easy task to do. I also strongly suggest to add the "Retouched picture" template, and put it into the description. Too much foreground, try to cut the bottom quarter off. --Kreuz schnabel 18:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry. The composition does not work for me. Too much disturbing foreground. --XRay ^talk 19:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not at all keen on manipulation of a scene even if it is exaggerated like this. I also agree with Poco a Poco that several of the super-impositions have a blurry/smeared look that suggests the clone tool and its deceptive brethren. On the other hand, I think the composition and exposure are excellent. I just don't like the artifice. (Is there a version of this photo which has just one lawnmower man in it?) --Bobulous (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes photoshopping is obvious but well done and produced a very consequent concept of strong and repeated lines made by repeatedly cloned workers.--Augustgeyler (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I actually like the idea and have no problem with clones but the foreground is distracting and should be cropped out --StellarHalo (talk) 04:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 09:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; would have been better without the foreground. Daniel Case (talk) 06:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oberthür's Grizzled Skipper (Pyrgus armoricanus), Le Collet-de-Dèze, Lozère, France - Flickr - Frank.Vassen.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2020 at 01:47:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Hesperiidae_(Skippers)
Info created by Frank Vassen - uploaded by Red panda bot - nominated by Shizhao -- shizhao (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- shizhao (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No vote from me at this point, but the file description has to be edited. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Already edited--shizhao (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Thanks for editing the file description. I think that compared to the current standard of recently-passed butterfly FPs, not enough of this butterfly is sharp. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too soft all over Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per others. Another area here where, like church interiors, the bar has been set pretty high by past FPs. Daniel Case (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Piz Kesch Panorama beschriftet.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2020 at 22:29:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info created by Capricorn4049 & Staublex - uploaded by Capricorn4049 - nominated by Capricorn4049 -- Capricorn4049 (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Capricorn4049 (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Valuable document, but not FP quality in my opinion. Baseline and leading problems in the layout of the text, making uneasy the legibility (examples "Piz.Arina" and "Hairlacher Seekopf" overlapping). Several black caption lines are also either jerky, blurry, or of different thickness -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Basile has a good point. The letters are pretty large at full size. Why don't you decrease the pitch of the letters, so as to leave a little space between each name? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile Morin. --Fischer.H (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Very useful and effective, but not a diagram of FP level to me. The overlapping of some of black labels makes it less than perfect. The image quality is not quite perfect, though that is not the reason for my oppose. Cmao20 (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the labels per others. Besides, the Arial font is not at all considered one of the best when it comes to easy readability which is demanded here (nor in any other respect IMHO but that’s mainly a matter of taste). I’d give the Gill Sans or Futura a try, which have thicker strokes and characteristic glyphs. Letters touching or even covering each other is a no-no. --Kreuz schnabel 18:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iglesia de San José, Ponta Delgada, isla de San Miguel, Azores, Portugal, 2020-07-30, DD 52-54 HDR.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2020 at 21:15:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Portugal
Info Little chapel in the church of St Joseph, Ponta Delgada, São Miguel Island, Azores, Portugal. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The standard for religious interiors is very high. I don't see a compelling reason for pointing the camera up, like thousands of other photos on Commons, with the sloping verticals and cropped doorway that results. The angle-of-view leads the eye towards the ugly skylight, which was not really worth capturing. (the photo is tilted -- the chain should be a plumb vertical) -- Colin (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak oppose I went back and forward on this one but I think Colin's reasoning is compelling. As I mentioned on a nomination below, there's nothing wrong per sé with uncrrected perspective distortion, but only when it serves an artistic purpose, and here I don't think it does. Regrettably the distorted walls are IMO just a bit too odd and they distract from the beauty of the motif. You do have an image of this motif without the perspective distortion, and if you nominated it I would vote for that one without hesitation. Colin, would be interested to hear your opinions on the linked photo. Cmao20 (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the other one is better, though I don't know whether that one is exceptional enough for FP, which should really be about our very best rather than being simply a competent photo. (The chain is off-centre and also slightly rotated, and we tend to be fussy about that on an extremely symmetrical composition.) -- Colin (talk) 07:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that issue can be fixed easily, though. For me the other pic is FP simply because it captures a beautiful object with high quality, good detail and good lighting. But i respect your opinion. Cmao20 (talk) 13:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Beautiful to me, and I prefer this to the view linked by Cmao20 above as a more interesting composition with more elements in it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although the equipment may be found by some beautiful ones I miss the wow effect. Instead the brain starts to think about how to understand the perspective.--Ermell (talk) 07:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly the problem I have here. The perspective gets in the way of the enjoyment of the photo. Cmao20 (talk) 12:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First of all I've to say that this chapel was one of the most beautiful and impressive I've ever seen, and I've visited hunderts of churches worldwide. Whether I've managed or not to capture that beauty is a different question but the item is IMHO definitely FP-worthy. Now, regarding the perspective, well, as Cmao20 found out there is a variant with a perspective correction. To me, both images are the day and the night. In the image with the corrected perspective I had to give up a lot of elements in the composition to get verticals vertical. Here I've the dome on the top (which I indeed like and I wouldn't call "ugly") which offers a nice compo with the circular elements in both walls, I see a portion of both doors and a detail in the top, which combine very good with the stairs. Poco a poco (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The chapel is really beautiful for sure. I like the dome - agree with you there. The bits of it I don't like are the distorted circular elements on the walls and the fact that the angel statues on the steps are also distorted. Cmao20 (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I like perspective you took. And i hope you wont go "correcting" distiortion. I just miss more contrast. --Mile (talk) 05:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mile: no worries, I'll definitely leave it the way it's. Poco a poco (talk) 11:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poco a poco (talk) 11:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poco a poco (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bruderwald Bamberg-20200106-RM-095212.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2020 at 07:38:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
Info Sunrays in the Bruderwald in Bamberg. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 07:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 07:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Visually pleasing -- Dey.sandip (talk) 07:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support This would be the 8th FP of this forest, all by you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Info After all, this is a large forest. Thanks to all supporters.--Ermell (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sure. And I nominated two of those FPs. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forest 8th, but not all of trees, right? -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support such warmth --StellarHalo (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. Cmao20 (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support My new wallpaper --Wilfredor (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. --Aristeas (talk) 08:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like this one but different composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 10:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 22:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Theyyam make-up002.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2020 at 07:48:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info--Theyyam (Teyyam, Theyam, Theyyattam) is a popular ritual form of worship in the Indian state of Kerala. Theyyam consisted of several thousand-year-old traditions, rituals and customs.

All by Shagil Kannur -- Shagil Kannur (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Shagil Kannur (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Really interesting photo, so arguably should be promoted purely as striking documentation, but I don't like the right crop being so close to his ear. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted to old version. Dear Ikan Kekek pls check.--Shagil Kannur (talk) 04:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Better to me. Still not sure about my overall opinion, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ikan Kekek, my focus is on the face. Hope you cast your vote.--Shagil Kannur (talk) 08:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really don't like the top crop, either. I'd like to see the rest of his head. And the reason I haven't voted and probably won't vote is that this photo is striking and great documentation, but the form really isn't working for me. Regardless of the outcome of this nomination, though, I would imagine this could be an excellent COM:VIC nomination in the scope "Theyyam face makeup". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like it, it has my kind of Wow --Kritzolina (talk) 06:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shall I withdraw my nomination? I am confused. --Shagil Kannur (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to you. A few days with not many comments usually means that either people don't feel strongly enough to support or oppose, or that people are ambivalent. I am in the latter group. I've come back to this a few times now. I feel like I want to support, but very much want more space in the frame (especially to the left) and there's a decent amount of noise. The latter is fixable, but might not be the biggest issue. Personally, I tend to leave low-support nominations open until a few people at least oppose. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support A bit noisy but quite interesting. Cmao20 (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination-- Shagil Kannur (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anna's hummingbird (41124).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2020 at 16:52:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds#Order_:_Apodiformes_(Hummingbirds_and_Swifts)
Info all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Been thinking about nominating this one for a while. On the small side, but so is the subject, and I think the detail is good enough for FP. Also noticed we don't have any FPs of this species (or genus). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I forgot about this picture. But I'm pretty sure I intended to nominate it myself at one point. Great photo of a pretty bird. Cmao20 (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Resolution is a bit too low, but otherwise well done. --A.Savin 14:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Need to sort out the blue fringes on the bush Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 22:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Order_:_Apodiformes_(Hummingbirds_and_Swifts)

File:Ceiling of a room at Borujerdi House, Kashan, Iran.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2020 at 17:16:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Iran
Info created by Amirpashaei - uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by Amirpashaei -- Amir Pashaei (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Amir Pashaei (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why didn't to try a HDR to avoid that overexposure in the sky? Poco a poco (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I captured bracketing mode 5 picture with 5 level of exposure. but the sky was empty and a little dirty with dust. I preferred white sky instead of that sky.--Amir Pashaei (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ermell (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support White sky doesnt bother me too much, especially with this immense resolution. Cmao20 (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 07:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another Master piece --Wilfredor (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great resolution, high level of detail -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Coast - São Vicente - Madeira.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2020 at 16:42:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Portugal
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The whites look gray to me -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done --Llez (talk) 05:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although I notice a difference, overall it doesn't change that much, probably because the light was not so convincing at the beginning (compare with that splash for example). Jeffrey's Image Metadata Viewer indicates a very heavy post-treatment (whites -100, blacks +100, shadows +75, highlights -77), which certainly affects the overall impression -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Great scene but I would expect the foam glow more. But it looks pale, especially in the back. --Milseburg (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I brightened the picture. --15:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Sorry Llez but I'm not sure I see what you are seeing in terms of composition. Cmao20 (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree that the composition feels a little unexciting, and also that the sea spray feels too grey. Pure clean spray in direct sunlight should be dazzling, but this feels muted. (Just to confirm, I am looking at the newest version of this image.) --Bobulous (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition. Works for me. Also, the water looks realistic to me, and if it were dazzling and blown, people would complain about that, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above (light) -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Bobulous. Daniel Case (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Platanthera chlorantha - Keila.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2020 at 13:11:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family_:_Orchidaceae
Info Flower of the greater butterfly-orchid (size nearly 2 cm, focus stacked image consisting of 27 images). All by Ivar (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 22:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Such subtle shades ... Daniel Case (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Asparagales#Family_:_Orchidaceae

File:St Martin church in Portet-sur-Garonne 07.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2020 at 15:03:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#France
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NeutralThe colors are wonderful but there is something wrong with the perspective of the right arches PROPOLI87 (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)PROPOLI87PROPOLI87 (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice church interior with lovely colours and an unusual off-centre perspective. Not seeing the problem with the right arches. Cmao20 (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it definitely depends on my astigmatism, the more I look at it the more it seems to me that it hangs from right to left.PROPOLI87 (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)PROPOLI87PROPOLI87 (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Cmao. --A.Savin 17:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 19:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 05:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some of the detail looks a little soft at 100%, but it's still sufficiently sharp and looks good when filling the screen. The exposure is well handled, the composition pleasing, and the scene is strikingly colourful and patterned. --Bobulous (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao and Bobulous. --Aristeas (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Amir Pashaei (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Oregrund (92909).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2020 at 17:30:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Settlements#Sweden
Info The Öregrund Hamn in Sweden, a marina in a small fishing village. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very niceSeven Pandas (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, nice mood. Cmao20 (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I miss the sun here. The technical quality is not outstanding. The CA on the left side are is bit disturbing.--Ermell (talk) 07:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A pretty ordinary sight to me, sorry. More exciting light might have given it a higher wow factor.--Peulle (talk) 10:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WB is off. Needs a slight perspective correction, too. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the composition and clouds, but WB is too yellow. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
new version uploaded minor perspective adjustment, redo white balance (it was originally too blue and I indeed went a bit too far the other way), and removed some bits of CA (if there are more feel free to annotate). Thanks. Pings: @Ermell, Basotxerri, and King of Hearts: — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I probably should've pinged all voters here: @Seven Pandas, Cmao20, Ikan Kekek, and Peulle: — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the ping. I somewhat more weakly support this version, as I liked the greater amount of yellowish light in the other version. But if this is more true to life, go with it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks, but to me, there's nothing that can be done. There's nothing really "wrong" with the photo, so there's nothing that can be "fixed". It's just that there's not enough of a wow factor for me to be blown away.--Peulle (talk) 09:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 11:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Puelle StellarHalo (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ayuntamiento, Poznan, Polonia, 2019-12-18, DD 07-09 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2020 at 16:35:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Poland
Info Blue hour HDR shot of the Poznań Town Hall (known in Polish as Ratusz), a historic building in the city of Poznań, in Greater Poland in the west of the country. The building is located at the Poznań Old Town in the centre of Old Market Square (in Polish Stary Rynek). It used to be the seat of local government until 1939, but it houses now a museum. The town hall was originally built in the late 13th century following the founding of the medieval city in 1253, and was rebuilt in roughly its present-day form, in mannerist style by Giovanni Battista di Quadro in 1550–1560. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely colours. Cmao20 (talk) 00:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice Christmas atmosphere --StellarHalo (talk) 01:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have never seen clouds like that (pushing with brush too much ?), stars seem like drawn. Correct me. I miss more contrast on building. --Mile (talk) 09:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hate to mention it again (as in QI review) but I'm spotting odd pure black corruption in areas near the big illuminated Christmas presents (in particular in the lighting at the bottom right of the Christmas tree next to those presents) and also in the bottom-right corner of the illuminated gateway at the bottom-right corner of the image. To be fair, I am looking extra closely this time for the FP review. Is there any way to reprocess the image to avoid those odd patches of corruption? Also, I agree that the sky looks a touch over-processed, and I believe this image would look just as striking with a somewhat darker sky, possibly even more striking and festive. --Bobulous (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bobulous: I've improved those areas and darkened the sky a bit Poco a poco (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Okay, I can't spot any signs of corruption now. Given the extensive adjustments made, can I ask you to add a "Retouched picture" template to the image page to describe the work that has been done between capture and display? --Bobulous (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very very Xmas ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The necessary perspective correction doesn't work with the towers imo. It's a QI for sure, but it seems that a visually pleasing photograph of this city hall can't be made from the ground. --Trougnouf (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Harris & Ewing - Helena Hill Weed.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2020 at 17:34:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Women
Info created by Harris & Ewing - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it allowed to have something like a watermark on it?--Augustgeyler (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For historic images, yes. The prohibition isn't meant to rewrite photographic history, just to keep people from adding a credit on their newly-taken photo. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is with eyes ? One more light than other. Watermark is part of history here, should stay. --Mile (talk) 09:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the skin texture detail has been completely erased, worst parts are below the eyes and the arm.--BevinKacon (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's film grain. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Mosbatho (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mosbatho, you have to give a reason for opposing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Marsh frog (Pelophylax ridibundus).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2020 at 17:41:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Amphibians#Family_:_Ranidae_(True_Frogs)
Info This is FP on English Wikipedia, but I really think it deserves the star here too. There is 1 very different FP of the species. I'm going to nominate a number of Charles' photos that have never been given a chance here over the next few weeks and see how they do. created by Charlesjsharp - uploaded by Charlesjsharp - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support We already have one of the same species, however this side view is very good too 🐸 -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 10:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but is there a stray horizontal line a little to the left of the lower right corner right near the bottom margin? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is! Well spotted. IMO only a tiny flaw, but, Charlesjsharp, could you fix that perhaps? Cmao20 (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for nom and spotting error. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 03:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very sharp --Wilfredor (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support always vote for frogs! --Andrei (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 07:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Amphibians#Family_:_Ranidae_(True_Frogs)

File:Schloss Johannisburg (Aschaffenburg).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2020 at 14:35:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
Info Johannisburg Castle in Aschaffenburg, seen from the northwest, in the near of the Pompejanum. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition. Cmao20 (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautifully exposed, but the composition keeps snagging for me because of the bright green/yellow plant which appears on the left, and because of the hard line of the wall which acts as a header for nothing but a patch of grass. --Bobulous (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Shagil Kannur (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Bobulous ... I'd be interested in this same view from a little bit about two o'clock from the current viewpoint. Daniel Case (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Too many trees obscuring the view. StellarHalo (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Bobulous. Excellent quality but the foreground ist just too dominant and distracting. --Kreuz schnabel 15:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sulla scogliera di Calafuria ammirando il Castello del Boccale.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2020 at 13:28:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Italy>
Info created by PROPOLI87 - uploaded by PROPOLI87 - nominated by [[User:{{subst:PROPOLI87}}|]] -- PROPOLI87 (talk) 13:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PROPOLI87 (talk) 13:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low quality, sorry --Wilfredor (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I actually love the composition this time, but why are there so many compression artefacts? It doesn't look so good at full size, and with the resolution also relatively small, I can't support it. Cmao20 (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CommentIt is not artifact, I just added sharpness because in the big screen it seemed out of focus, now I too am not seeing it well myself. I upload the original file, so let's see what it looks like.79.18.127.140 19:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)PROPOLI8779.18.127.140 19:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --A.Savin 17:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I already voted against this on QIC. Technically nowhere near one of the very best photos on the site, no great light, etc. I would recommend for you to wait until your photos pass at COM:QIC and then post them at COM:Photography critiques for advice on whether to nominate them here or not, but it's totally up to you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In fact, when I posted here, it had already been approved on QIC, then all the votes against came. In QIC now there are comments that say that the photo is saturated, but I don't want to insist, because I see that they don't believe me, and I wouldn't want it to be perceived as wanting to be voted on. But I would like to assure you that this is the place. A small jewel set in the cliff of the Tyrrhenian Sea coast.PROPOLI87 (talk) 12:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)PROPOLI87PROPOLI87 (talk) 12:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment This place might be a beautiful jewel in the cliff, and this image of it is indeed nicely set and well composed. Unfortunately, from a technical point of view, it is – sorry – very much less so. Poor detail, harsh contrast (shadows too dark), full of compression artifacts, pink sky. Obviously, the camera settings were not set for best quality here. It’s really a pity, but I have to Oppose oppose. --Kreuz schnabel 14:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 02:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Südliche Mosaikjungfer - Aeshna affinis.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2020 at 14:56:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Aeshnidae (Hawker Dragonflies)
Info created & uploaded by Sven Damerow - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks Tomer for this nomination, very beautiful --Wilfredor (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support WOW. One of Sven Damerow's best, I'd have nominated this like a shot if I'd seen it. Cmao20 (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful image. -- Shagil Kannur (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow indeed. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 08:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Background a bit blinding / distracting at the top but excellent focus -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 10:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really exceptional! I think this is definitely the best photo of a dragonfly I've yet seen. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Cayambe (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 12:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The bokeh at the top right is a nice touch. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Trougnouf (talk) 09:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 07:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on support Daniel Case (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 29 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Aeshnidae (Hawker Dragonflies)

File:24th Annual Holocaust Remembrance Program at the Lincoln Theatre (34291491795).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2020 at 21:58:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Men
Info created by US Department of Agriculture - uploaded by Kritzolina - nominated by Kritzolina -- Kritzolina (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kritzolina (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support the picture is very expressive.--Christof46 (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a bad photo, but I'm a bit distracted by the person in the background.--Peulle (talk) 07:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose precisely per Peulle. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Per King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose While it’s admittedly impressive, it looks too much like a random snapshot to me, with the irritating background. --Kreuz schnabel 05:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose As much as I love the side view, the lighting, the distinguished look the pinstripes on his jacket lend Kent, and the "Leopold! Leopold!" hair, all this is for naught due to the background. Daniel Case (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Law Courts during blue hour, Christchurch, New Zealand.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2020 at 05:44:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#New_Zealand
Info Created, uploaded and nominated by me. These are Law Courts during blue hour, Christchurch, New Zealand. Photo was taken during lockdown so that's why there aren't any cars or people. Otherwise, it's a really busy place in the city centre. -- Podzemnik (talk) 05:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 05:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful. --Aristeas (talk) 09:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 10:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support This is why I think the lockdown wasn't all bad! Beautiful photo, Podzemnik! —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support though maybe HDR could have done a better job reining in the highlights. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Great lighting --StellarHalo (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 22:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit radical in terms of perspective correction but a nice result overall with a great light Poco a poco (talk) 07:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Poco about perspective being on the edge of comfortable. Also, do you think it is a bit bright for "blue hour"? -- Colin (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: Yup, I agree that the persepctive correction is on the edge. I descrease the exposure a bit. Regards, --Podzemnik (talk) 05:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A really cool-looking courts building made even cooler. Daniel Case (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stambecchi nel Parco Nazionale del Gran Paradiso.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2020 at 09:29:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family : Bovidae (Bovids)
Info created & uploaded by Luca Casale - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 09:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support resolution is a bit small, but very nice picture which I think worths the star. -- Tomer T (talk) 09:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 12:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit small indeed, but a nice composition, the two bucks are very sharp. However, an exact description of the animals is missing. --Palauenc05 (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The photographer captured a special moment and the composition is spot on. However, I don't like the postprocessing: the heavy-handed selective sharpening and blurring makes the image look overprocessed; upon closer inspection, the animals have a woodcut-like quality. All of this could be easily fixed, though. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it's a shame this photographer over-processes (example) -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support per Frank Schulenburg. Cmao20 (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Per Frank Schulenburg and due to the image size. I also have the impression that there could be more editing here as I'd expect but cannot prove it. Poco a poco (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support But the description could be better --Llez (talk) 04:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others: Irresistible composition but poor description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow --Fischer.H (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Quite small but the animals are sharp enough --StellarHalo (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support even if I would prefer less postprocessing, per Frank. --Aristeas (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Amir Pashaei (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Shagil Kannur (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose over-processed Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Charles; they look like diorama models. Daniel Case (talk) 03:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support beautiful, low resolution, missing exif info. --Trougnouf (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family : Bovidae (Bovids)

File:Recollects Church of Saint-Cere 06.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2020 at 15:14:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#France
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dramatic photo. Cmao20 (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support But I would remove the birds, at least the unsharp ones --Llez (talk) 04:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 08:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good light. --Aristeas (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 07:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Daniel Case (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It lacks wow IMHO, a solid QI to me, Poco a poco (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Poco. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but find it a little bit too ordinary for FP. The light is nice but not very wowy. --Podzemnik (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 03:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Scarlet Robin female - Blackheath.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2020 at 14:49:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Petroicidae_(Australasian_Robins)
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Ivar (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another beautiful one from JJ Harrison. Cmao20 (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stepro (talk) 08:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 22:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 04:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 03:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Schwäbisch Hall - Altstadt - Am Markt 9 - Ansicht.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2020 at 17:29:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
Info I thought this was a really good example of architectural photography - taking a motif that doesn't immediately seem to have FP potential and turning it into a beautiful photo. created by Aristeas - uploaded by Aristeas - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a pity that there is a bicycle rack. --Llez (talk) 04:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a good picture, but no wow recognizable. --Fischer.H (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colors, I like the plants and find the bicycles add something to the mood 🚲 Basile Morin (talk) 10:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Basile, I thought so too. If it had been a car, it would detract from it, but the bicycles are in keeping with the setting and I see them as 'a feature not a bug'. Cmao20 (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like canoes and paragliders, bikes are environmentally friendly -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thank you very much, Cmao20, for nominating this photo and all of you for your support! --Aristeas (talk) 11:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice but not inspirational to me. The close crops of the buildings to the left and right don't work compositionally for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: I understand your remark about the crops. Of course there was a reason for the tight left and right crops: This is a fairly crowded place, therefore it was not easy to get a photo of the building without passing people before it; it would have been even more difficult to get a wider view without people. However, I have been able to provide a little bit more at the left and right, and uploaded a new version. In order to do so I had to remove some parts of people etc. from the bottom left and right corners, so a small part of the pavement and the wall (bottom left) is retouched; I hope this is OK for FPCs. The new version has at least the advantage that the gargoyle and the bust of Augustus at the right are intact now ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks. It's better to me, but I really would have wanted to see the rest of those buildings, or at least the one on the left, which just might not have been possible. Basically, I'm just looking for a composition I can enjoy moving my eyes around, and having just a bit of the buildings left and right doesn't really facilitate eye movement to me. I could easily be wrong to try to follow a linear arabesque in a photo like I do in a painting, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 07:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per Ikan Kekek. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Ikan. I can see what you saw, what made you take the picture, but unfortunately the differing heights of the adjacent buildings make the whole thing feel unbalanced. Daniel Case (talk) 05:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 03:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Water reflection of karst mountains, wooden hut, trees and colorful clouds at sunset with green paddy fields, Vang Vieng, Laos.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2020 at 02:50:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Reflections
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, really nice light. Cmao20 (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice spot and natural colors. --Mile (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support really nice. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 07:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 22:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Good but the wow factor is moderate to me. The reflection is there but not so appealing as most of it is pretty dark and yes, the light is nice, but just on the right, still, compo/motif, quality and ligthing overall are at FP level to me Poco a poco (talk) 07:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Heino Elleri Muusikakool 005-rytmimuusika pano.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2020 at 21:23:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People at work
Info created by Lauri Veerde - uploaded & nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support No stitching error on the objects that are so near. That's not an easy task at all - great work --Capricorn4049 (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A bit of purple fringing on the window. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Capricorn4049. Cmao20 (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ I see what KoH is talking about, but a good idea, otherwise quite well done, and I like the expressions on the musicians' faces. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basile is right. I am removing my supporting vote until the name of the uploader is clarified and the personality rights template is added. Fixes of the fringing would also be preferable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No source, {{PR}} missing, no description in English. Purple fringing and blown highlights through the window -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added the PR template. Eng desc was on the Captions section. I also copied that do the template. I don't understand this "No source" comment. Please clarify. Kruusamägi (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the photographer? It doesn't seem so, then where does the picture come from? Can you provide a link with the license, or specify the file page? Concerning {{PR}}, as it seems to become the norm, please try to include the template in all your uploads with people (there's a bunch of portraits that don't have one in your imports). Your other nomination with people still doesn't have one either now -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In other words: a permission from Lauri Veerde is missing. Being an ORTS agent yourself, I guess you should know what that means? Also applies for the rest of Category:Photographs by Lauri Veerde, by the way. The files in Category:360° panoramas of Estonian Students' Society building have the appropriate template, so I don't know what's the problem here? Backlog in the permissions queue? --El Grafo (talk) 10:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That image is part of a larger set (several GBs), that I was uploading during the summer, but then some things came up, and I haven't yet finalized with this. That is why the permission isn't fixed (but naturally there is permission: that is how I even got the files in the first place). There are permissions with the files that are related to other sets (like this). In that photographer category, there are files that came directly from the photographer, and files (like this EÜS collection linked above or Stenbock House collection), that came via intermediate organization (that is: EÜS ordered the production of those files and owns all the rights). Kruusamägi (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Permission is now there. Kruusamägi (talk) 10:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is there any chance to get some additional information about the equipment used here along with the number of frames before the stitching with PTGui? Poco a poco (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I asked about this from the photographer. Hopefully he'll reply. Kruusamägi (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Poco a poco: Lauri wrote that he uses Sony A7R III, Canon 8-15mm f/4 fisheye lens & Nodal Ninja panoramic head. He usually shoots at 13mm in 6 directions + one down. Standard is 3 images in each position (+-2 EV) and so in total one panorama image consists of 21 photos. For post-processing he uses Lightroom, Ptgui, SNS-HDR, Photmatix, Aurora HDR, Photoshop, Topaz Labs plug-in’s or whatever is needed. Kruusamägi (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Wilfredor (talk) 11:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Kruusamägi, I'm still not seeing a mention of the uploader on the file page. If I'm not missing something somehow, please add that information. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify on what you expect to be there. I'm bit slow here. With every file page there is infomation awailable on who uploaded the file. So the author is there, the source is there, the uploader is there. Or should it be presented somehow differently? Kruusamägi (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support I guess it's evident from the file history; I'm just used to seeing it as a line in the Summary. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support now that the decriptioon page is in order. --El Grafo (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bell peppers 2020 G1.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2020 at 13:34:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Fruits (raw)
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good idea, however the flash is too strong resulting on harsh contrast --Wilfredor (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Wilfredor. Nice idea, but direct flashlight causing hard shadows and blown highlights. DoF a bit shallow. --Kreuz schnabel 18:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree and I also find the setting too "simple" Poco a poco (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old Man's Cave (23041).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2020 at 15:00:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Other#United_States
Info A couple at a waterfall in the Old Man's Cave area of Ohio. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful place but too harsh light here, overexposure on the hair of the foreground ppl and the water --Kreuz schnabel 07:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice atmosphere. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like it. The lovely touch of golden light at the top and the couple in the foreground, it's really nice - could be a painting. Cmao20 (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These backs immediately repel me. Unappealing light -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think the light is that great here, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 11:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:2020-09-23 Potsdam 1DX 1690 by Stepro.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2020 at 08:05:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Germany
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Stepro (talk) 08:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Stepro (talk) 08:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, it certainly has wow factor... but I'm not wildly impressed by the resolution. Could you elaborate as to why it is not higher?--Peulle (talk) 09:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I basically export photos with a maximum of 10 MP from Lightroom. This is not a Commons question, but because I believe that camera sensors are overdone and quality should come before quantity. If it should make the others happy, I could upload it here with more pixels, but as I said, I don't really see any point in it. --Stepro (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question Do you mean uploading the same photo with artificially added pixels or uploading a photo that is less downsampled? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The second of course, the first one would be stupid imho. --Stepro (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but others have done that. I'd like to see the full-size version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Info @Peulle, @Ikan Kekek: As I said I see no point in this pixel counting obsession, but have now uploaded the photo in full resolution. --Stepro (talk) 06:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'd say it was worth it and that your photo is even better at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+1 - thanks for the higher resolution. Really great nomination IMO. Cmao20 (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support That's what I wanted to see from the start. :) --Peulle (talk) 12:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support 10 megapixels is OK for me, especially when the photo gets everything else right. Cmao20 (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is the reflection real? The water truly as still and clean? IMO this is what this spot usually must look like, or look at this series. --A.Savin 16:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, indeed looking closer you see spots and plants, specially on the left (furthermore objects closer, like the guy or metal bars are not identical to the wall, which would be my expectation). The reflection is great but, apart from the size, it's kind of irritating (I know that I can be picky here, sorry) the lack of symmetry in the middle arch, you were a bit to far to the right. Therefore Neutral Poco a poco (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was a little bit right from the middle. Due to Corona, it was not possible to continue walking without prior registration. --Stepro (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's real. Luckily it was a very windless day, and although it was very light, the sun was filtered through some clouds and couldn't shine directly on the water. --Stepro (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for uploading the full resolution! --Aristeas (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Buidhe (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Portas da Cidade, Ponta Delgada, isla de San Miguel, Azores, Portugal, 2020-07-29, DD 123-125 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2020 at 11:28:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Portugal
Info Portas da Cidade (City gates) of Ponta Delgada, São Miguel Island, Azores, Portugal. The doors are a symbol of the primitive land defense of the city. They were built in 1783 and with the works of Avenida Infante D. Henrique in 1948, they were dismounted and raised in the center of the neighboring Praça de Gonçalo Velho in 1952 (current location). c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 11:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 11:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO a brilliant photo in terms of quality, composition and colour. Reminds me a little of this for some reason. Cmao20 (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agreed. (Note: possible dead pixel up in the right part of the sky. Easily fixable.) --Peulle (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Peulle: Removed Poco a poco (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~Two big lens flares and one dust spot on the sky~~ --Ivar (talk) 15:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ivar: Removed, somehow hard to see but after I saw them they were obvious. Poco a poco (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ivar (talk) 06:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aristeas (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support nicely done. I added a couple annotations to the image, though, where it looks like some light was sharpened through the halo (perhaps there is a technical term for this that I'm not aware of). Supporting because while it's distracting at full size, it's imperceptible otherwise. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: : fixed and thanks for the notes --Poco a poco (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Plagiotremus rhinorhynchos (30873062447) (cropped).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2020 at 13:14:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family_:_Blenniidae_(Combtooth_Blennies)
Info created by q phia - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support pity about the foreground, but the main subject is very sharp at high resolution (and that with f/32!) --Ivar (talk) 14:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ivar. Cmao20 (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Too poor description, no information, where the photo was taken (aquarium?), no geocoding and DEAD LINK to the source. --Llez (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not taken in aquarium, this image, though indeed not anymore availble, was coming from one of their wonderful diving albums, this one, I improved a bit the description. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The unsharp coral takes up way too much of the image --StellarHalo (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per StellarHalo poor composition, though the fish is sharp. --Tagooty (talk) 07:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per StellarHalo. Daniel Case (talk) 05:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The detail of the fish is great, you cannot compare underwater photography with e.g. archicture photography in terms of composition Poco a poco (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - sure, I wish that either the coral were in focus or more of it were out of focus, but the sharpness of the peekabooing fish is good enough for FP IMO — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2020 at 14:23:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Shells#Family : Littorinidae
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stepro (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 22:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cmao20 (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 04:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SL Horton Plains NP asv2020-01 img11.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2020 at 03:05:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Sri Lanka
Info Baker's Falls in the Horton Plains National Park, all by A.Savin --A.Savin 03:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 03:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A courageous nomination, since FPC reviewers usually frown on the subject being in shadow, but I find it quite a beautiful effect in this instance, and I love the colors and the shapes they produce. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support the composition and lighting do work - per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Cmao20 (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I like the idea and it almost works but for the weird ringing around the branches at left. Daniel Case (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Würzburg Käppele Decke-20200830-RM-160751.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2020 at 07:34:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings/Ceilings#Germany
Info Ceiling frescoes in the pilgrimage church Käppele Würzburg. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 07:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 07:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some green/purple CA at bottom left. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Sorry, that was not the final version.--Ermell (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 03:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A splendid baroque vault. --Aristeas (talk) 07:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Isiwal (talk) 07:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To be honest, it looks overprocessed to me, there are even sharpening halos, look at the chord (of a lamp?) at the bottom Poco a poco (talk) 07:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now until I get some kind of feedback or an improved version Poco a poco (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overprocessed per Poco. Daniel Case (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Tournasol7 (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Changed gallery from Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Germany to Places/Interiors/Religious buildings/Ceilings#Germany -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Balloon flowers (71604).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2020 at 17:56:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Plants/Asterales#Family_:_Campanulaceae
Info Balloon flowers. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I just like the nice natural light, the diagonal composition, the mix of shapes with the flowers/stems/buds... — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question when you cropped, did you crop flowers bottom right by mistake? Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, sadly. Just didn't notice at the time. The bottom-right crop is why I didn't nominate this sooner despite really liking it myself. We will see if it's a deal-breaker, I suppose. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Beautiful and colourful but sorry, I don't really see what you can see in the composition. To me it just looks like a competent and good quality but not outstanding photo of some flowers. Cmao20 (talk) 07:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao20. --Peulle (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hypholoma-fasciculare-ks01.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2020 at 18:44:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bunch of Hypholoma fasciculare in late afternoon

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Order_:_Agaricales_(Gilled_Mushrooms)/Family : Strophariaceae
Info all by -- Kreuz schnabel 18:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC). I was fascinated by the symmetric shape of that bunch. The late afternoon light made them somehow glow from the inside.[reply]
Abstain as author -- Kreuz schnabel 18:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~~Overall low quality. Noisy.~~ Blurry and distracting foreground. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Info New version uploaded reworked from raw file. The first version was too harsh indeed. --Kreuzschnabel 20:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The quality is much better now. But I still mind because of the bad composition. The mushroom at foreground is blurry and branches cross out the main object, sorry. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 03:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment From my point of view, the ooF mushroom in the center adds depth to the overall scene. However, to quote myself, an image that needs verbal explanation is not good enough to feature. Thanks for your opinion. --Kreuz schnabel 16:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I was thinking the same thing. --Peulle (talk) 07:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do see what you are seeing when you describe the afternoon light making them almost glow. But unfortunately the blurry leaves in the foreground are too distracting for me. Cmao20 (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Same issue as here. Any way to get a similar alternative? -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Obviously, this is not quite running for success. --Kreuz schnabel 16:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sole of foot of an infant held between the middle finger and the ring finger of an adult hand for size comparison.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2020 at 00:30:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Others
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support 🦶 :-) Basile Morin (talk) 00:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice idea and perfectly done. --Kreuz schnabel 07:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Kreuzschnabel. Cmao20 (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very cute and maybe a bit underexposed --Wilfredor (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support and perhaps a congratulations is in order, too? :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2020, should I cross my fingers? 🖖 :-) Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the subject of the photo. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see :-) Was finding these honors really optimistic too 🤞 :-) Basile Morin (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As my tribe says, Mazel Tov! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the right species, I think "baby foot" is the vernacular name :-) Basile Morin (talk) 09:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, Basile Morin!! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha! YES! :-) Thanks a lot. Lucky ⌛ 🏆 🤩 :-) Basile Morin (talk) 07:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hyles gallii, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2020 at 04:37:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Bedstraw hawk-moth caterpillar in a moment before pooping
Bedstraw hawk-moth caterpillar with frass

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Sphingidae_(Hawk_Moths)
Info Focus stacked of 14 images. All by Ivar (talk) 04:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 04:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work! --Podzemnik (talk) 04:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I actually said "Wow!" out loud at the thumbnails. It looks like the caterpillar is just starting to poop on the left. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support These paparazzi nowadays don't even let you 💩 quietly 💬 #!* :-) Basile Morin (talk) 07:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 08:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support well spotted Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support :) Kruusamägi (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cmao20 (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question how many of the frames for each of these images overlap? Flipping back and forth between the images at full size they appear to be the same image with the exception of well, the poop and a handful of pixels around it. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course a number frames are overlapping, caterpillar was standing still while pooping. Timeframe of the process was only some seconds. --Ivar (talk) 10:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, it's a great shot, and I don't intend on opposing. I just wonder about process with set nominations where 90%+ of the image is the same (not just appearing the same, but actually the same). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cerkev sv. Danijela, oltar (Celje).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2020 at 08:02:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Altar, church of Saint Daniel, Celje, Slovenia. All by --Mile (talk) 08:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 08:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish the composition was a bit more centered, but still nice for me. Cmao20 (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe the statues could be a little bit sharper, but overall very nice and atmospheric. --Aristeas (talk) 14:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some of it is not that sharp. I don't think this is a church interior FP in 2020. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral the compo/subject don't work with me but there is nothing unsharp. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Christian and Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Mile (talk) 07:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ceiling of Aminoddole Carvansarai, Kashan, Iran.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2020 at 08:43:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Iran
Info created by Amirpashaei - uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by Amirpashaei -- Amir Pashaei (talk) 08:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Amir Pashaei (talk) 08:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Again a fascinating ceiling. --Aristeas (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 03:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ahmad^talk 18:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Buidhe (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gift of the Ocean.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2020 at 09:38:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/People#People_at_work
Info created by Yann Macherez - uploaded by Yann Macherez - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting, nice photo, distracting blurred foreground sticks and nearer woman could be sharper, but I think the filename really needs to be made Commons-style. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I won't stand in this photo's way, but the blurred foreground sticks bug me too much for me to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good enough for me - the colours are really nice. Ikan is right about the filename though. Cmao20 (talk) 12:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I requested the change Done --Andrei (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao. --Aristeas (talk) 07:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow --Wilfredor (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 22:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something different Poco a poco (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 12:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is different ... and definitely a QI or VI. I think the right half alone would have worked as an FP, but like Ikan I find the blurred elements distracting, and in the whole image the other woman. Daniel Case (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. --Milseburg (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 18:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:1000 Islands Tower view July 2015 panorama 5.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2020 at 17:41:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Canada
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Humongous file, great quality, good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brings back memories of collegiate beer runs to Kingston. Daniel Case (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kuni's chromodoris, fan 38 west, wakatobi, 2018 (45763962462) (cropped).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2020 at 18:49:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class_:_Gastropoda
Info created by q phia - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really beautiful, and I think the sharpness is OK for an underwater photo. Nice nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support 100% per Ikan. Cmao20 (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is not good, this is great! this moluscs are tiny (4 centimetres (1.6 in) long) and there is a lot of detail here. Furthermore the colors and light are awesome Poco a poco (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow! Yeah, that brings this up in impressiveness a couple of levels. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Podzemnik (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Poco. --Aristeas (talk) 08:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful picture. -- Kaffe42 (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colorful mollusk and nice light in a natural environment -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ahmad^talk 18:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support sea slugs are so strange! — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Psychedelic ... Daniel Case (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mute swan cygnet pontoon in Prospect Park (80364).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2020 at 17:32:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes#Genus_:_Cygnus
Info mute swan cygnets forming a little pontoon on the duckweed-covered pond. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support FPC regulars will likely remember another FPC of swans on this duckweed pond from last year. Nominating here because I think this shot of the group huddled together without a parent is sufficiently distinct (and higher resolution). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree, sufficiently different. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very cute! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Unlike everyone else I'm not sure it's different enough, but I won't oppose and ruin the possibility of a five-day-rule promotion while everyone else is supporting. Cmao20 (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I kind of agree with Cmao20 but this one is better than the current FP in terms of quality and compo Poco a poco (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unfortunately this photo is too cute --Wilfredor (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The previous one became POTY finalist, this image definitely is worth at least the FP label. Different enough due to the absence of the mother in my opinion. Moreover, the other one suffered from little issues (tight crop at the right, mother's head hidden behind a duckling) that this picture is spared. Closer view and better resolution too. Very good composition here, nice light, and of course, bewitching :-) Basile Morin (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Wilfredor. --Aristeas (talk) 08:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ahmad^talk 18:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Wifredor. Daniel Case (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Palacio de Schönbrunn, Viena, Austria, 2020-02-02, DD 10.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2020 at 20:40:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural_elements#Other
Info Kammergarten pavilions in the gardens of Schönbrunn Palace, Vienna, Austria. The location, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, was the main summer residence of the Habsburg rulers. The site is one of the most important architectural, cultural, and historic sites in the country and a major tourist attraction since the mid-1950s. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality and photo and nice composition, it's nice to see how you can see a virtually identical gate in the distance Cmao20 (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao; the gate appearing in the gate is really nice and reminds me of some Escher artworks. --Aristeas (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Buidhe (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 03:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:A room in Tabatabai House, Kashan, Iran.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2020 at 21:57:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Iran
Info created by Amirpashaei - uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by Amirpashaei -- Amir Pashaei (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Amir Pashaei (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is an extra wooden edge on the right side compared to the left. Could you remove it from both or include it in both to preserve symmetry? Also, the right side seems to be a bit wider than the left. A horizontal correction should take care of that. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I cant find wooden edge dear King of Hearts. can you specified it in the note?--Amir Pashaei (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks dear King of Hearts . I cropped for symmetry.--Amir Pashaei (talk) 05:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When cutting the piece of wood, the upper roof design has been cut off and does not look symmetrical --Wilfredor (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's symmetrical now. --Amir Pashaei (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support But please, take care of the King of Hearts notes --Wilfredor (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stepro (talk) 08:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support If King of Hearts notes be applied. --Gnosis (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's symmetrical now. --Amir Pashaei (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very big size, good management of the light -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The relative width issue remains, but it's not noticeable at first glance and you can only tell by actually measuring. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is too much uninteresting floor here, I'd have definitely cropped a portion, or better, I'd have tilted the camera further to the top to capture more ceiling and less floor, anyhow a nice shot if not so wowing as others of yours Poco a poco (talk) 07:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. but I liked the floor because of pattern of light in the sides.tilting the camera to the top cause Perspective distortion. for correcting this problem in photoshop you lost sides of the picture.--Amir Pashaei (talk) 07:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I'm going to have to take a pass on this one due to the overprocessed, ringed look of the stained glass. Daniel Case (talk) 03:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pierre-Luc-Charles Cicéri - Eugène Cicéri - Philippe Benoist - Adolphe Jean Baptiste Bayot - Décorations de théâtre, Robert le diable, 3e act.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2020 at 21:15:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Entertainment#Music and Opera
Info created by Pierre-Luc-Charles Cicéri, Eugène Cicéri, Philippe Benoist, and Adolphe Jean Baptiste Bayot - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great restoration! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cmao20 (talk) 09:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Buidhe (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Entertainment#Music and Opera

File:Botanical Garden Karlsruhe 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2020 at 05:59:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Germany
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 05:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find the composition unbalanced. The tree on the left is too close to the top edge compared to the left edge, making for an odd gap in the top left corner. The two prominent trees are too far on the sides, leading the viewer away from the center. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The buildings also seem tilted. In any case, I don't think there's anything particularly spectacular about the image - there's no big "wow" factor for me.--Peulle (talk) 06:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I agree with Peulle. A very competent, good quality panorama but not an oustanding composition - I find myself unsure what the eye is supposed to be drawn to. Cmao20 (talk) 09:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Llez (talk) 10:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grad Brežice, "Trompe-l'œil" freska nad stopniščem.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2020 at 10:48:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors#Slovenia
Info "Trompe-l'œil" fresco, Brežice Castle, Slovenia. All by --Mile (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stepro (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A very interesting fresco. I am hesitating to vote because the fresco seems overall symmetric, but while the left part is aligned with the left image border, the central part and the right appears rotated in clockwise direction. Maybe it would be an idea to improve the symmetry by rotating the image counterclockwise. --Aristeas (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aristeas Done as much as I could, but all lines aren't straight - neither can be "right angle" on all of them. --Mile (talk) 07:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thank you! IMHO it’s better now. Of course these old frescoes are often not perfectly symmetrical in reality, so we cannot expect perfect symmetry from the photo. --Aristeas (talk) 08:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I've seen sharper frescoes presented at FPC, but overall this deserves the star for me. Cmao20 (talk) 06:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tight top crop --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination will do one more try, someday. --Mile (talk) 06:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Puu oo.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2020 at 10:26:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena#Volcanism
Info created by G.E. Ulrich - uploaded by User:Ultratomio - nominated by Nexo20 -- Nexo20 (talk) 10:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nexo20 (talk) 10:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Aside from any other reason (posterization, etc.), it's way smaller than the 2 megapixel minimum for Commons featured pictures. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2020 Krzywa Wieża w Ząbkowicach Śląskich 4.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2020 at 12:58:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info created by Jacek Halicki - uploaded by Jacek Halicki - nominated by Jacek Halicki -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It has definitely wow, I would remove the weak if you remove the halos at the top of the tower Poco a poco (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The unique lean of the tower is fascinating and I love the combination of the lights in the tower and the blue hour sky. This is the best photo I've so far seen from this series. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture and very interesting tower. -- Kaffe42 (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support that is a sassy building — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brave dentist practicing in front :-) Basile Morin (talk) 03:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan, amazing photo. Cmao20 (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 10:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought for a minute Jacek, I was back in Torun. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support But remember fix the verticals :) --Wilfredor (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ahmad^talk 18:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 10:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support It seems, for once, like the builders and not the photographer are responsible for the blatant stitching error. Daniel Case (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ausulsjokk stream during golden hour (DSCF3045-DSCF3072).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2020 at 13:25:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Sweden
Info by -- Trougnouf (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Trougnouf (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak-ish support Nice landscape and good colours but a bit noisy and not so much detail at full size. Then again, the resolution is quite high, so you wouldn't see the noise so much if downsampled. Cmao20 (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No special geographical feature for a landscape. Not impressed by the color and atmosphere. Lack of detail throughout. --StellarHalo (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Foreground is too dark. Pink clouds, but not spectacular shapes. Overall it lacks wow -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid that Basile's criticism is accurate Poco a poco (talk) 07:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile Morin. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the general mood. Slightly pixel-level unsharpness is not an issue at 60 MP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral If only the foreground was a bit brighter. --Kreuz schnabel 07:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 05:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per KoH. Buidhe (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haindlkarhütte viewpoint panosphere 20200622.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2020 at 08:53:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria#Styria
Info created by Domob - uploaded by Domob - nominated by Domob -- Domob (talk) 08:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are very few spherical panoramic FPs, and none from natural places (excluding one from a tree in a park). I think this is a good candidate, as it is a nice mountain view and an interesting perspective on the cliff of the viewpoint. --Domob (talk) 08:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Domob (talk) 08:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral look satured and too much noise reduction --Wilfredor (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the feedback! I can definitely redevelop with less saturation and noise reduction if others agree here. --Domob (talk) 04:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I can't say that the motife and the setting make an FP. --Milseburg (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the details and panorama view, but it looks partly (clockwise) tilted. I added one note. Saturation level could be only a bit lower. --Ivar (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good point, I'll try to fix the tilt in the marked part of the image (and generally redevelop the panorama). --Domob (talk) 04:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral pending resolution of issues raised in other !votes. Daniel Case (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will try to redo the picture and fix the issues raised over the weekend. --Domob (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hilly Painted Dunes scenery.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2020 at 17:03:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United_States#California
Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool Poco a poco (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question We recently promoted a similar picture, didn't we? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Info Painted Dunes and Fantastic Lava Beds (upright).jpg has been promoted earlier this year. The one above shows the Painted Dunes on a different side of Cinder Cone where the colors are darker. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks. Agreed, this is different. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Different enough to me. Cmao20 (talk) 10:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 10:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 10:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 22:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mount Shasta as seen from Heart Lake in September 2020.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2020 at 17:07:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United_States#California
Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful colors. Some clouds and a slightly wider framing would make it even better, but FP as is. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 01:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per KoH. Cmao20 (talk) 06:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per KoH. --Aristeas (talk) 10:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 22:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Light is kind of harsh, but given that any view this clear in California at that time was a stroke of luck, I shouldn't complain. Daniel Case (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tavola 5, bozzetto di Gebrüder Brückner per Tannhäuser (s.d.) - Archivio Storico Ricordi ICON011721 - Restoration, crop.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2020 at 06:06:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Entertainment
Info created by Max and Otthold Brückner - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful. Cmao20 (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question That's a really lovely stage design. I notice the medium is "photoreproduction over paper". To be clear, is this a photo of a photocopy of the original? I suspect not, but I don't really know what that phrase means. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek: Similar to halftone processes. You can just about see it at highest resolution, but it's high-quality enough to not matter much. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely see the small dots at full size. I'll Support, but if you can get your hands on a photo of the original and it's better than this, we could do a delist-and-replace later. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Presuming it still exists, I'd guess the Bayreuth Theatre archives. Someone get a Wikipedian-in-Residence there. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bush canopy during sunset in Lake Kaniere Scenic Reserve, West Coast, New Zealand.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2020 at 21:01:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/New_Zealand#West_Coast_(Te_Tai_Poutini)
Info Created, uploaded, and nominated by me. This is a bush canopy on the West Coast, New Zealand. The trees are mountain neinei, an endemic plant to New Zealand that grows in the upper parts of the native forest. I quite like the composition and the light which makes it special in my eyes. The picture was taken at the end of the sunset when the sun produces cracking orange light. -- Podzemnik (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colours. --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really interesting vegetation and per nom and Palauenc05. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan Kekek. Cmao20 (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 22:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 02:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks a bit overprocessed at full view but that’s pixelpeeping. Great idea. --Kreuz schnabel 07:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 12:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 04:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful weak oppose per the background ringing and noise noted by Kreuzschnabel. Daniel Case (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: I tend not to argue about my photos and let the shots speak for themselves, but just a little bit of background here: it's a photo from the bush at 1000m above the sea level during the sunset in one of the wildest areas in New Zealand. So the conditions are quite challenging. This was taken during the most still evening I've experienced there - and actually I can barely imagine the nature to be 100 % still up there. I really don't see the noise or ringing that would be so bad to disqualify the photo from FP. But nothing against your vote, I just thought I'd say a few words about the arguments that you backed up your vote with :) All the best, ---Podzemnik (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 06:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/New_Zealand#West_Coast_(Te_Tai_Poutini)

File:SK Dětmarovice v SK Jiskra Rýmařov (19 September 2020).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2020 at 21:22:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Association football (soccer)
Info all by me. -- T.Bednarz (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- T.Bednarz (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support You took the shot at the right moment. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really great! --Stepro (talk) 08:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cmao20 (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite busy background but good good. --Podzemnik (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Cut legs. Only 7,7 Mpx from a camera that can take many more, distracting background due to landscape format -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Indeed the bottom crop is not convincing. Either you focus on heads and ball with landscape format, use less mm (like to did here) or you should have gone for portrait format with the whole bodies, sorry. Poco a poco (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition, background, crop. looks like a foul. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Poco a poco. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Poco. Cut-off legs won’t work. Added my preferred framing of this scene :) --Kreuz schnabel 07:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, crop. A full-length version would have had potential ... Daniel Case (talk) 17:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have looked at this for a while now and I'm coming down on the side of an oppose. The composition, while acceptable, is not outstanding in itself, but the main issue for me is that the man on the right is facing away. I would have gotten more of a "wow" sensation if I could see the fighting spirit in the eyes of both players.--Peulle (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment too busy background and unfortunate compostion with the cut off legs. Apart from that the photo was shot with a 400mm fixed lens so when the action comes closer to you there's no chance to simply zoom out. Experienced sports photographers have two bodies at hand - one with the 400mm and the other one with a 70-200mm. --Granada (talk) 07:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunday Creek Bog.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2020 at 04:28:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Ontario
Info: Sunday Creek Bog seen from the Spruce Bog Boardwalk, Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario, Canada. All by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Cosmonaut: Could you give us full metadata record please? The photo looks a bit flat, like it doesn't have any highlights or shadows (perhaps you dragged highlights and shadows sliders to -100 and +100?). --Podzemnik (talk) 05:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to add full metadata back to a panorama after Hugin reduced it. In any case, I've improved the contrast a bit. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 05:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Painterly, I like the colours and composition. Cmao20 (talk) 10:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice but too dark. (If brightening it would cause it to look washed out, then you need to simultaneously increase contrast and/or black intensity.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done: brightened. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like more water on the left. Is there any way to add more to the bottom? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried stitching using different projections, and this version provides the most extensive field of view. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Probably this is the most achievable composition. The colors are very beautiful.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 22:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 06:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 06:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Capela Dourada, Recife, Pernambuco, Brasil.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2020 at 21:49:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Brazil
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice item and quality. Could you add some additional information about the amount of frames or equipment used? Poco a poco (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done 3x3 pictures and 3 exposures each image (+5,0,-5) = 27 RAW images in total. Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Beautiful motif, but it looks like you may have bad frames on the middle and upper left. It looks like maybe camera shake or some kind of double exposure or something, though the fresco looks better than the gold leaf-covered sections above and below it on the left. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ummh, I think that you should work on that indeed, I didn't see unsharp frames in the middle but definitely in the upper left, I also found a stitching problem, see note Poco a poco (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ikan is right but it's a great photo anyway. Cmao20 (talk) 09:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Poco is right, some mistakes and unsharp parts. But very good indeed. --Mile (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support But do fix the stitching error. Daniel Case (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would really like to support this photo which is one of the most impressive church interiors I have seen, but could you please (if it is not possible to replace the unsharp frame in the upper left) address the stitching error marked by Poco? This photo is really worth the additional effort. --Aristeas (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the comments, I think correcting this will take longer than I thought, so I am going to cancel this nomination. Wilfredor (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gebrandschilderd raam in de kerk van Sondel, (zaalkerk uit 1870) 10-06-2020 (actm.) 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2020 at 05:22:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Single stained glass windows
Info Stained glass window in the church of Kerk van Sondel, (church from 1870) National monument. Info: The window was offered out of deep gratitude in the year of the Lord 2007 by Rev. Jorrit de Haan born July 23, 1934 in Sondel. Maybe a simple photo, but in my opinion in a nice perspective.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice motif and perfect image quality. Cmao20 (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Here a stained glass window from the "wrong" side ;-) --Llez (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I really don’t know why this shot should be considered outstanding. (Except because the photographer was standing outside the church …) --Kreuz schnabel 14:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuzschnabel. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unappealing perspective and irregular light (darker at the bottom than at the top). It lacks wow -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others; just another unremarkable photo of a window. Daniel Case (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hyacinth macaw (Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus) in flight.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2020 at 09:52:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Psittacidae (True Parrots)
Info A beautiful and sharp photograph of a bird in flight by Charles. created by Charlesjsharp - uploaded by Charlesjsharp - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 09:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 09:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 10:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nom. The Indian government made a postage stamp from this photo, though they didn't ask and didn't acknowledge the source. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's irritating of them. But then again I guess it's nice to have your work featured on something like that. Cmao20 (talk) 11:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would you have a basis under Indian law to sue them if you wanted to? But I doubt you'd get anywhere. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've written many times to different ministers and officials, but not one has replied. I've been told by an Indian friend that India Posts has been to known to pay people to take photos, but they just go and steal themǃ But yes, It's nice to have it used. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good catch of a bird in flight -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good mix of sharpness with some motion blur — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ahmad^talk 18:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice picture. I know a lawyer in India if you're interested in following up with the govt ;) --Muhammad (talk) 08:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family : Psittacidae (True Parrots)

File:Lyttelton Harbour (Whakaraupō) from Mt Ada, Canterbury, New Zealand.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2020 at 05:47:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/New_Zealand#Canterbury_(Waitaha)
Info Created, uploaded and nominated by me. This is Lyttelton Harbour / Whakaraupō with the surrounding hills. -- Podzemnik (talk) 05:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find the landscape quite rich for features and I also enjoy the colors. -- Podzemnik (talk) 05:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful and a huge file. I do see at least 2 small, light dust spots high in the sky, 1 toward the left and the other toward the right. I didn't look super-carefully for them, so there could be more. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: I think I've got them all. Thanks for spotting them. The servers seem to be down at the moment so I'll reupload the file when they work again. Regards, --Podzemnik (talk) 08:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I kept having issues re-uploading the file so I deleted it and uploaded again... So dust spots are gone although there is only 1 file in the backlog. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 10:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 10:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning panorama. Cmao20 (talk) 11:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Peulle (talk) 11:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ahmad^talk 18:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed, nice view and colors Poco a poco (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 03:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning indeed. --Aristeas (talk) 10:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice panorama. Very impressive. It would be interesting to know how many images have been stitched for getting this pano. --Mosbatho (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mosbatho: I've added that information into the file. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Wonderful! --Mosbatho (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Meiræ 22:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 05:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question In the central part there is a sky with a purple tone that looks unnatural to me, were these the real colors? --Wilfredor (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wilfredor: I didn't do anything to the colour tone. No gradual filters have been applied. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Dans ce cas, je n'ai rien à opposer --Wilfredor (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Excellent! MartinD (talk) 13:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/New_Zealand#Canterbury_(Waitaha)

File:Somatochlora albicincta emerging from the nymph stage in Bowron Lake Provincial Park, BC (DSCF2350).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2020 at 07:30:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family_:_Corduliidae
Info by -- Trougnouf (talk) 07:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Trougnouf (talk) 07:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stepro (talk) 08:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice pic. Not the highest resolution but the insect is very sharp. Cmao20 (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others and a great moment. Did you have to wait a while for the insect to emerge? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We found it just like that. The process from full emergence to flight takes 1-3 hours (per [1]), and it was perfectly still the entire time we were there (30 minutes or so). --Trougnouf (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The branch is distracting, ~~and the trunk not vertical. This is a weird position to emerge (unrealistic angle).~~ Only 5,5 Mpx -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Trees are not always straight and dragonflies often pick such an angle. Here is another angle where you can see the trunk is not straight and the dragonfly is hanging with the angle shown File:Somatochlora albicincta emerging from the nymph stage in Bowron Lake Provincial Park, BC (DSCF2357).jpg --Trougnouf (talk) 06:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This posture might be more faithful than I suspected, however I still find the composition cluttered, due to the branch and the busy background. Compare with this one for example (more striking appearance and higher resolution, from 2009) -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I prefer that FP you linked, awesome Poco a poco (talk) 08:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Weak oppose Basile is right, the moment is great and special but there are too many distracting elements in the image, specially the branch is killing it, look at this example in comparison. I don't know whether the angle is realistic or not, but the compo would be more pleasant if the the lines were verticals. I know that the editing effort would be very significant but would reconsider a support if you clone out the branch and rotate the image. If you try and the result is not good I can give it a try, too --Poco a poco (talk) 08:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Changing the angle would be changing the nature of this scene, besides if that angle is so unbelievable then it is definitely a feature worth capturing.
The surface on File:Metamorphosis of a dragonfly In progress (7343478646).jpg is so straight it appears to be an artificial structure (and it is capturing a different stage anyway). File:Anax Imperator 2(loz).JPG is already a FP, rightfully so, but it captures a different family of bug and a completely different scene (a stick, likely on the water, vs the edge of a lush forest). There is no reason one type of picture excludes the other. While removing the branch wouldn't hurt the educational scope as much as changing the angle, I won't remove it for similar reasons I wouldn't move it in real life: it's part of the scene; a busy wooded area cramped with trees, moss, branches, fungi, and virtually no man-made manicure, and I think it frames the firefly beautifully. --Trougnouf (talk) 08:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That nomination passed just 7-3, the background was less cluttered, and the light much better. We're here to select the best images -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The angle of the dragonfly should not be changed. This is how it can be. But unfortunately, the cluttered composition is not great. It is really tricky to 'isolate' an emerging dragonfly. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 01:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James H. Clark Center, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2020 at 02:45:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Clark Center from the south
Clark Center from the east

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#United States
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Both pictures are a bit soft and neither is an FP to me, sorry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: I'm a bit surprised by your comment. Could you elaborate why you believe the pictures to be soft? They were taken with one of Nikon's sharpest lenses, the 14-24mm f/2.8G, and you can see the detail inside the buildings perfectly fine. The tiling on the ground is rather smooth and textureless, which is why you may perceive it as soft. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sure, I can see details. These photos are high-level QIs to me. But a lot of the exterior elements of the building aren't crisp to my eyes, but a little diffuse. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because there is no detail in the material to begin with? It's a smooth, polished surface. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but then I suppose it would be down to the light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan --StellarHalo (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Colors look like washed off. Also miss some wow here. --Mile (talk) 12:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cmao20 (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support the first one, "neutral" for the view from the east (composition less striking due to the foreground, cut). If this set fails I would suggest an individual nomination of the view from the south only. Good sharpness in my opinion, nice blue hour -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 22:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ The images will become FP but I don't understand which criteria is met to present it as a set, so my oppose is rather a formal one. The images are both at FP level to me. Poco a poco (talk) 10:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Poco a poco: "A group of images depicting the same subject from different viewpoints, preferably taken under the same lighting conditions when possible." A comprehensive set would be ideal but is not an absolute requirement. The reason I didn't go for a comprehensive set here is that a north view is not possible (see the tree blocking the view in the south image), and a west view would be a mirror image of the east view and thus redundant. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, moving to Neutral because you just convinced me to 50%. A comprehensive view is indeed what I'd usually expect but I maybe more demanding than the rule, not sure Poco a poco (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Avoriaz (5).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2020 at 11:18:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#France
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support We've seen sharper shots, but this is a really big single shot and it looks very good from close range at 70%. Striking motif and composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support and regarding the sharpness I don't think it's a fault in the photo itself. The detail is all there, it's just as if not very much sharpening has been applied from RAW. But that's OK. Undersharpened is always better than oversharpened. Cmao20 (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Cmao20 there is room (and need) for sharpening --Poco a poco (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support without reservations — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20/Poco; a little bit more (careful!) sharpening etc. could improve it further. --Aristeas (talk) 08:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overprocessed Too much clarity, unnatural light, software's buttons have gone too far here -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose after 5 days -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Due to the blurring at the seam on the right frame, this is unfortunately no FP for me. --Ermell (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 03:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. Also not sharp enough details. StellarHalo (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really like that image, but some blurry areas ... Kruusamägi (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:ISR-2013-Aerial-Jaffa-Port of Jaffa.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2020 at 17:15:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Settlements#Israel
Info created by Godot13 - uploaded by Godot13 - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support High-quality aerial photography of a beautiful city. Cmao20 (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality for an aerial photography, the light is beautiful and the city reveals from this high point of view an impressive mixture of cultures, epochs, styles and activities. --Aristeas (talk) 08:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Highlights could nonetheless stand to be dimmed a bit in some areas, such as the church's clock tower. Daniel Case (talk) 03:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Left side is leaning out, I also miss wow here Poco a poco (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panorama Lorchhausen.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2020 at 19:37:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Hesse
Info View over the Rhine to Lorchhausen on a quiet evening. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak support~~ Nice light and reflections but IMO a shame the coastline is cropped at the bottom.Cmao20 (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Much better. I'm sad this photo doesn't seem to have gained much traction. Cmao20 (talk) 06:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Info Thank you for the review. I spent a bit sand at the bottom. --Milseburg (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really beautiful together with the reflection, very nice light. (Some of the houses at the right are overexposed, but that’s IMHO not important, these are rather boring houses.) --Aristeas (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much in shadow --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't find this view impressive. So no wow. StellarHalo (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The cut off bush at the right and the foreground are distracting in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eesti Lennuakadeemia 360-13.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2020 at 21:13:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport#Helicopters
Info created by Lauri Veerde - uploaded & nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a stitching error on the blade of the helicopter held by the man in gray -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination You are correct! I didn't noticed that before and now I'm bit like surprised how I didn't notice that. I thought I checked all the image. Anyway, I withdraw my nomination. Kruusamägi (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Château Frontenac, Quebec Ville, Canada.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2020 at 21:47:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Canada
Info All by-- Wilfredor (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd have gone for more exposure keeping that nice light, but still FP to me like this --Poco a poco (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find this FP to have a better exposure: File:Château Frontenac city at night.jpg. --Podzemnik (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I would normally expect an architectural FP to have better detail (shouldn't have used f/16 on a crop sensor) but this shot is all about the atmosphere, which is fantastic. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really like the atmosphere (completely agree to KoH), but there is something like a halo around the “needles” on the roofs of the two highest buildings; could you remove/reduce that? --Aristeas (talk) 08:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I too prefer the other FP linked by Podzemnik, but this one offers something different so i think it's OK. Cmao20 (talk) 09:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rosa Raisa (1917) - Archivio Storico Ricordi FOTO002701 - Restoration.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2020 at 23:20:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/People#Sitting_people
Info created by Herman Mishkin - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done --Wilfredor (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Buidhe (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Arctotis fastuosa-20200814-RM-114321.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2020 at 09:12:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Asterales#Subfamily : Asteroideae
Info created & uploaded by User:Ermell - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support If you have a large screen, look at it at 100% on that screen. I looked at this on my 13-inch and 19-inch screens, and it's just spectacular! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Makro shots should be taken with care. Good stuff (Charles) no bandnig here. Colors are splendid, but borders around are not "FP" class here. Problem are leaves behind first line - all aorund the flower. Ikan Kekek i look at 100%. Stitching make a lot of work. --Mile (talk) 09:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question You're complaining about the shapes in the bokeh? OK, let's see what other people think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its not bokeh issue, just stitching issues and some problems using clone/brush tool. Gave 4 notation, but there are more around. --Mile (talk) 09:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for explaining that, Mile. Just a quick note: It's standard to put the notes on the nomination page, not the file page. People have previously complained that putting notes on the file page constitutes vandalism to them. That said, it would be a shame if a few small issues you've identified that I did not notice on the petals sunk a nomination of an incredibly detailed photo - look at the middle of the flower! User:Ermell, would you like to work on or otherwise address the issues Mile has notated on your file page? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the nomination Ikan. No problem. I will fix that tonight!--Ermell (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you, Ermell. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know,sometime its easier to see on that site and make notation, since i dont see zooming here. Picture is great so that mistakes could be solved with not much work. @Ermell i would put copy-paste from original files of those areas. So good is to have saved original stacked photo. --Mile (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for the support.--Ermell (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Much better.--Mile (talk) 07:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Whether the issues are fixed or not, this is an outstanding photograph to me. Cmao20 (talk) 14:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice macro --Wilfredor (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support New MediaWiki logo -Killarnee (C•T•U) 18:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 04:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. --Aristeas (talk) 10:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support opening at full size made me say "wow" out loud — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Top Poco a poco (talk) 10:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Family : Arecaceae (Palms)

File:Radeče panorama.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2020 at 09:19:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Slovenia
Info Panorama of Radeče, Slovenia. My photo. --Mile (talk) 09:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 09:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Raster in the sky, details of the trees have been lost due to motion blur and not wow --Wilfredor (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose A lot to like, but the sky doesn't come through well and some areas of the cityscape seem overprocessed. Daniel Case (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rubus caesius fruit - Keila.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2020 at 06:53:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Rosaceae
Info Fruit of European dewberry, focus stacked of 36 images. All by Ivar (talk) 06:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty and sharp focus stack, and I like the background. Cmao20 (talk) 09:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's interesting how each section acts something like a prism, dividing the light into different colors. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support What 105mm lens used you for this picture?. --Wilfredor (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wilfredor: Nikon AF-S 105mm f/2.8 VR Micro-NIKKOR. --Ivar (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering, I really had the doubt that it was FX --Wilfredor (talk) 12:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question are the green and red dots on the berries for real? Poco a poco (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I assume it's a result of sunlight reflection. --Ivar (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks, nice shot Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support very nice, did you try a square crop? Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did, but then it felt, like something is missing. --Ivar (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Background gradient is sumptuous. Very nice light and high level of detail -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support assuming the speckling is natural and not color noise. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 04:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great photo for my. Question: is the background natural? Is the blackberry still on the bush, or have you cut off the truss. Your answer does not change my voting record.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, background is natural. No need to cut, just prop up a little. --Ivar (talk) 06:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support juicy — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Water reflection of a wooden hut with colorful sky and karst mountains in a paddy field at sunset Vang Vieng Laos.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2020 at 05:34:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Reflections
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful silhouettes and reflections. --Aristeas (talk) 07:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The issue with your pictures of paddies and karst hills is that so many of them could be FPs, it's hard to know which ones shouldn't be. However, this is certainly different from your other FPs in this category, it's beautiful at both the image and compositional levels, and it's a clear FP even compared to your other work. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Ikan - the light in this one is really outstanding. Cmao20 (talk) 09:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one is nice. Something is in the sky - dust !? --Mile (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very likely a gnat. Now removed. (I also moved your image note from the file page to this nomination, per Help:Gadget-ImageAnnotator#LOCALA and point #7 at Commons:Image annotations#Examples of inappropriate and not-informative notes:) Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ivar (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zürich view Quaibrücke 20200702.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2020 at 08:39:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Switzerland
Info created by Domob - uploaded by Domob - nominated by Domob -- Domob (talk) 08:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is (in my opinion) one of the best views of the old town of Zurich, containing many of the important landmarks at once (Grossmünster, Fraumünster, St. Peter, Limmat), and this high-resolution panorama is the best picture we have of this particular view. There's one existing other FP of the old town of Zurich from the Grossmünster; this one is also very nice, but does not show the landmarks all together. --Domob (talk) 08:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Domob (talk) 08:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination --Cmao20 (talk) 09:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great detail! I am a bit unsure about the white balance (maybe a bit warmer and a bit more in the magenta direction could make it even more appealing?), but that’s a matter of taste, of course. --Aristeas (talk) 07:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas, although after thinking about it I wonder if your idea was to emulate the look of a postcard, because that's the vibe I get from this WB? If so carry on ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's an interesting thought, but to be honest, wasn't my intention. So if you and Aristeas think the WB could be improved, I can certainly give it a try and make it a bit warmer. If I find some time, I'll prepare an alternative. --Domob (talk) 04:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, IMHO it would really be worth to try a bit warmer WB. If the changes are not dramatic, it is (AFAIK) not necessary to provide an alternative version for FPC; just upload the new version and state that you have changed it. --Aristeas (talk) 06:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've updated the file with a slightly warmer WB. --Domob (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support That small change made the difference for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose WB still looks strange, now too warm and a bit greenish. The right side is clearly leaning to the right, The composition, as it is, guides the eye to the middle of the image, where I just see a bunch of cranes. If you fix the WB and above all the perspective issue, I will reconsider my vote Poco a poco (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Fixed the verticals on the right, and less yellowish/warm WB. --Domob (talk) 09:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now we're talking, this version is definitely better, but the pinnacle of the church is still tilted. Fix that and I strike through my vote Poco a poco (talk) 10:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The WB is wrong. Yellowish now -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Better now -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Roof of the qom grand bazaar, qom, iran.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2020 at 20:53:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Iran
Info created by Amirpashaei - uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by Amirpashaei -- Amir Pashaei (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Amir Pashaei (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awe-inspiring, grandiose and impressive --Wilfredor (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is definitely too close to this other FP of yours (that btw I nominated one year ago). If you prefer this version, then the right thing to do is to propose a "replace". Poco a poco (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I would normally agree with Poco's reasoning, but I'm hesitant to de-feature a WLM winner just because something better came along. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Poco. If you'd like to nominate this to replace the other one as an FP, I would vote for this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Poco. The other picture is IMO a little better, and both should not be FP. Cmao20 (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my humble opinion, I don't think both images are the same, especially because of the exposure treatment and the cut, so I think this could be a genuine separate candidate --Wilfredor (talk) 12:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Amir Pashaei (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

White-throated kingfisher (Halcyon smyrnensis fusca), not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2020 at 15:30:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

OK, look. I have to break the fish's spine so I can swallow it.
Now I release it to position it better in my beak.
Great. Didn't drop it. Would have been SO embarrassing with you watching.
This is the clever bit. Watch. I release it again so I can swivel it round 90 degrees.
Perfect, are you impressed? Swallowing head first is THE only way.
Mmmm. That was tasty. How did I do?

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Alcedinidae (Kingfishers)
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality is good and I would support the 3rd and 6th shot as a series, but this whole series goes to far IMHO and it doesn't fulfill the second type of series (A sequence of images showing the passage of time) as the differences between them are minor Poco a poco (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just having 3rd and 6th would have no didactic use. The "minor" differences are crucial to demonstrate the precise eating process. I agree that not everyone will be interested, but where else have you seen this documented? Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Neutral without prejudice to individual nominations. I just don't really see the value of having these as a set as they're high in number and visually similar. Points for narrative :) but this many frames to illustrate an action like this gets to the point that it would be better served with a video. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This would be a five-second video and you not be able to see exactly what's going on without freeze frame - which would not show this level of detail. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fair point, but you would get the actual movement. I think one of the things I struggle with with sequence-based set nominations is that they're so rarely actually displayed as a set. It's far more likely people will find these individually or out of sequence, and I'm just not sure we need 6. I'm reminded of what you did with File:Rosy-faced lovebirds (Agapornis roseicollis roseicollis) composite.jpg. It would be hard to do that with 7, but it's a way to tie them together without promoting [in that case three] visually similar images. Regardless, I'll move to neutral and give it some more thought. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean, but if we have sets, then we must expect a number of shots. I have tried a composite, but that doesn't display well. Perhaps an anology is some of the very long panoramas we get here, that are difficult to appreciate As you can see from the voting, it's pretty impossible to get all of six shots at individual FP level and obviously voters are not happy making allowance for that, which is fair enough. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Considering that these are action shots, I think they are all at FP level. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seems like a valid set to me. I get Rhododendrites' point, but this is better quality than any video would be likely to be. And it's quite interesting to see the whole process. Cmao20 (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Number #5 is not an FP. Blown highlights and blurry face -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Per Basile Morin.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20 --Ermell (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Basile and Nr 1 is imho also not sharp enough for FP. --Ivar (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao, great educational value and really fun. --Aristeas (talk) 10:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful weak oppose per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Banksia spinulosa - flowers, Christchurch Botanic Gardens, Canterbury, New Zealand.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2020 at 02:07:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Plants#Order_:_Proteales
Info All by me. I thought I'd try to nominate something new so here it is: a triptych showing decay of flowers of Banksia spinulosa. -- Podzemnik (talk) 02:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 02:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would be better if it's the same flower. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlesjsharp: Probably. Although, I think that they're similar enough. --Podzemnik (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice idea. Cmao20 (talk) 12:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support but would prefer as a set of three images to make it more easily reusable on Wikimedia projects. (e.g. What if someone wanted to have the three images vertically? What if someone only wanted to use one or two of them?) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if separate nominations would have sufficient wow effect. I've uploaded them separately and inserted them into the "description" field. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very high quality and value for WP. But it would be great to upload three other versions (every single plant). That would increase value for articles.--Tesla - 💬 08:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tesla I've uploaded the photos separately and inserted them into the "description" field. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Clementines (01014)s.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2020 at 21:16:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Food_and_drink#Fruits_(raw)
Info Composite of two focus-stacked images of a clementine (whole and then the same clementine peeled). all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I couldn't think of a suitably pithy comment. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ooh nice. Orange you glad you thought of one? :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very funny, Charles... Cmao20 (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and clever! --GeXeS (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Separating space in the middle should be of same thickness or inferior than the side borders, for right balance. See Page layout -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Basile Morin: Good point. new version added with some padding. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yes, I find the composition very improved -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tesla - 💬 08:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Oh my darling, oh my darling ..." Daniel Case (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ...is it just me or does one slice of the unpeeled clementine seem a bit out of focus. Kruusamägi (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food_and_drink#Fruits_(raw)

File:Eesti Lennuakadeemia 360-9.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2020 at 21:19:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People at work
Info created by Lauri Veerde - uploaded & nominated by
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely an interesting shot. Only concern is whether the OTRS permission includes the graphics of the simulator which, looking through the panoramic viewer, occupies the full screen from certain perspectives? What do people think about this? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do me it seems clearly a de minimis. Kruusamägi (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMO not de minimis per Rhododentrites. However, I'm not sure this photo is sharp enough in some places for FP. For example, his head is not sharp 5 steps smaller than full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment {{PR}} please (once again) -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Kruusamägi (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the screen should be considered de minimis. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really interesting subject and probably a really good VI in the right scope, but I don't like the people, and especially the one in the pilot's seat, being unsharp. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Strong support! MartinD (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Given all the things that could go wrong taking one of these I think the heads are OK, and the graphics ... well, they're not the whole image, and in this case I think that in the US you could get away with calling them a useful article (and thus copyright-ineligible) in this context. Daniel Case (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iglesia del colegio de los Jesuitas, Ponta Delgada, isla de San Miguel, Azores, Portugal, 2020-07-30, DD 09-11 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2020 at 22:22:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Portugal
Info Rich baroque altar of the Church of the Jesuit College, Ponta Delgada, São Miguel Island, Azores, Portugal. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support stunning.--Ermell (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support love the detail. how do I get one of these for my living room? :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support highly interesting local style of baroque - well depicted --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martin. --Aristeas (talk) 10:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magnificent photo. Cmao20 (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Suzhou canals November 2017 006.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2020 at 23:07:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#China
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A good QI, but not particularly exciting scene or light, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Peulle. Great photo though! -- Kaffe42 (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Peulle, unfortunately. I do like that boat that's wearing a hat! :-) —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 04:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bloem van een Rudbeckia fulgida. 02-09-2020 (d.j.b.) 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2020 at 05:25:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Subfamily : Asteroideae
Info Flower of one Rudbeckia fulgida. An indestructible plant for a sunny spot in the garden. Focus stack of 14 photos.
by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great flower picture, but I don't like the unrealistic choice of backgrounds. With that much light on the flower, I can't imagine it being astronomical twilight or whatever this is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the non-nature background Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Background is OK for me. Cmao20 (talk) 11:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 03:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good light. The background works for me, perhaps because of its complementary color, and thus according to the color theory, the combination is simply harmonious like that - same choice for an ambigram I made recently :-) And also because this deep blue enhances the indigo center of the flower. Of course, it is artificial like could be wallpaper or a painted wall - definitely not a blue hour with this light - but still a simple and compelling setting in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe it would be even better if the background was a bit lighter (is that the right English word?), but Basile put it very well. --Aristeas (talk) 10:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, lighter or brighter both work. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I encourage using natural background instead, because it's hard to imagine a garden reserve with this kind of background. --Ivar (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd support if the blurry area/FS halo (see note) is fixed Poco a poco (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Small correction. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, looks better, you got my Support, Poco a poco (talk) 10:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, this one works for me! --El Grafo (talk) 08:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile. Black would have been a solid but all-too-common choice for this background; dark blue is an interesting changeup. Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Asterales#Subfamily : Asteroideae

File:Castle of Gy 08.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2020 at 10:03:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#France
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 10:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 10:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO a nice interior. Cmao20 (talk) 11:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support different from what is offered here much more often. And a nice composition.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely a very curious interior. --Aristeas (talk) 09:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I bet they built it especially for stag parties ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Agree with the comment above, still I'd expect more detail. It isn't sharp and the issue is bigger at the right border. To be honest, when I saw the image I expected a ISO 1000 and corrected with denoising (but I found ISO 100). Furthermore I find the left crop not so good (I'd crop a bit more) and also the top right botton (cutoff deer head) could have been (maybe) better. Poco a poco (talk) 10:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:FCCA EMD JT26CW-2B San Bartolomé.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2020 at 10:21:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info created & uploaded by David Gubler - nominated by Ivar (talk) 10:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 10:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 11:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I know it's from 2013, but since the camera used is capable of it, I expect a higher resolution from an FP image.--Peulle (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Resolution is OK for me, the difference might be in a crop and perspective correction. --85.85.19.165 12:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@85.85.19.165 and Basotxerri: Please login to vote. --Ivar (talk) 12:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sorry, I wasn't aware. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the nomination! I've uploaded a new version with a bit less overexposure and raised shadows. There isn't any more resolution though, the image is heavily perspective corrected and cropped, sorry. --Kabelleger (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for the new version! --Aristeas (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 07:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 03:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lo sbadiglio.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2020 at 11:46:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family : Canidae (Canids)
Info created & uploaded by Alberto Peracchio - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 11:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 11:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose shame that so much is blown. That's the trouble with snow, but here the whole image is over-exposed. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMHO, The snow does not have texture seems more the result of the good use of the depth, although ma vignetting bothers me a bit, I think it is enough to be FP --Wilfredor (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The vignetting bothers me too much unfortunately. A lovely capture though, but it would be much better with it corrected. Cmao20 (talk) 06:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Support Very good photo of the fox with its mouth open, decent composition. Some kind of detail in the upper right would have been nicer, but I'm not bothered by featureless snow in this context and nothing feels uncomfortably bright to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support as Ikan, the composition mitigates the overexposed snow --Muhammad (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Wilfredor and Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 10:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Wilfredor. Yes, there's some reduced detail in the foreground and background, but that is due to the good use of DoF rather than problems with the exposure. There are some areas in the center and foreground that are technically (close to) clipping, mostly in the blue channel. But that is not a problem as 1) transitions to non-clipped areas are smooth, 2) these areas are out of focus anyway, so there's no loss of detail. Of course, there's nothing wrong with even plain white #FFFFFF in an image per se if handled appropriately. The over-all impression of the image is actually more on the side of under-exposure for me. That may have to do with the vignetting, which looks a bit strong in the compressed tumbnails but gentle enough in the original full size version. --El Grafo (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I’d have processed it differently, a bit more on the dark side *g*, but good enough IMHO. --Kreuz schnabel 16:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional oppose that I'll turn in support if the vignetting is fixed Poco a poco (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had a look at the EXIF. This looks like it was converted from raw in Lightroom, and there is no evidence that software vignetting was added there. I suspect this is from the super-zoom lens being shot wide-open, and the vignetting from the zoom has unfortunately not been corrected by Lightroom. Perhaps it shows more on white than other images. Since it doesn't appear to be a creative-choice addition to the image, normally I'd support correcting a lens flaw directly in-place. But it won 3rd price in WLE Italy, so we shouldn't apply more than minor fixes per COM:OVERWRITE. I agree with others, there is no problem with the brightness of the snow, and I'd support an alt that had been carefully fixed. -- Colin (talk) 07:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For me it is clear that there is no problem with appearance of this snow since I live in it for 6 months and they are monochromatic colors that I'm used to seeing most of the year --Wilfredor (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe the issues with the perceived vignetting could be resolved by cropping in from the right (per note). Daniel Case (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family : Canidae (Canids)

File:Schloss La Tour-de-Peilz-20140517.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2020 at 09:52:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Switzerland
Info A well-composed photo of a Swiss castle - the mountain backdrop adds a lot to it. created by JoachimKohlerBremen - uploaded by JoachimKohlerBremen - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 09:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 09:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed a beautiful combination, from the shore of the lake to the peaks of the mountains. --Aristeas (talk) 10:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The background is a bit ominous. but the composition is well chosen for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've looked at this photo a bunch of times, and the crop of the tree on the right bothers me. I want to see the rest of the tree. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. I’m not sold on the composition either, plus it’s rather soft at just 6 megapixels. Colours mostly on the coldish side. Wouldn’t say it’s one of our very best. --Kreuz schnabel 12:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yellow butterfly on Tagetes lucida.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2020 at 00:08:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Pieridae (Whites and Sulphurs)
Info Catopsilia pomona (Emigrant butterfly) male on an orange Tagetes lucida (marigold). Created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A beautiful butterfly and also a very well composed photo. Cmao20 (talk) 06:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have tons of butterflies on blurred flowers, and tons of flowers without insect. The idea here is to propose an innovative composition, since the focus is not too bad for a gathering of three subjects. Thanks! -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The light on the second flower looks harsh to me --Muhammad (talk) 08:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient detail/sharpness on the damaged butterfly, and the flower on the right doesn't add value to the composition being out of focus. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting and very good quality for me -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The flower and the butterfly on the left (main motif) are sharp enough for me! The flower on the right completes the composition for me. But that's personal.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well composed --Wilfredor (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles --StellarHalo (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 07:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Grünau Almtal Großer Ödsee Schermberg.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2020 at 14:12:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Austria#Upper_Austria
Info I found this an impressive, well-composed Austrian mountain landscape that could easily be a painting. I will understand if you find the colours too subdued, but for me that subtlety is part of the photo's charm. created by Isiwal - uploaded by Isiwal - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shooting in the direction of the sun at noon on a summer day is rarely a good idea, and this is no exception. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Cmao20 (talk) 09:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cmao20 (talk) 09:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maison Maizerets, Quebec ville, Canada.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2020 at 19:47:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Canada
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely crepuscular rays, nice leading lines. This is the beauty of the Panini projection: more or less straight lines for architecture, but the ability to show a wider scene than rectilinear. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very striking composition, but please fix the big dust spot above the left side of the building. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 14:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent, dramatic photo. Cmao20 (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Perspective correction necessary, the front is bent, should be straight --Llez (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per Llez. I think that can be fixed. -- -donald- (talk) 06:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Wilfredor: While you make a new version to fix the perspective, it might actually be possible to get the lines of the building exactly straight. In the Panini projection, that occurs when the lines pass through the center of the image; here of course the vanishing point is to the right of center. If there's no way to adjust the center in the program, to hack it you can perhaps make some fake frames on the right and crop it out at the end. You probably don't need to address the vertical imbalance, as panorama stitching programs generally have a sense of where the image is on a globe and thus know where the horizon is even if it's not centered. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the feedback and comments especially to King for his explain, I am going to review this carefully because it is not easy to correct the perspective, I also have a hard time understanding exactly what I should correct, I do not know if they are the inclined verticals. One thing I discovered is that if I correct the verticals the image cuts off considerably. Anyway, thank you very much --Wilfredor (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wilfredor: One thing about panorama stitching that I didn't realize until fairly recently, is that it is much better to stitch it with the right perspective in the first place than to try to correct it later. I don't know about the program that you use, but in Hugin it is possible to set vertical control points to tell the program what the straight lines are. While software is quite good at identifying control points where adjacent frames should be stitched, it still hasn't really figured out how to identify verticals properly, so manual is best. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can also try the rectilinear projection in Hugin, then the lines should be straigt --Llez (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Domergue's leaf chameleon (Brookesia thieli) Andasibe.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2020 at 20:27:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family : Chamaeleonidae (Chameleons)
Info About 65mm long. So seldom seen, that it was incorrectly identified at the time. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cmao20 (talk) 06:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed, banding.--Mile (talk) 07:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question Sorry Mile, can you point out the banding for me, please. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Charlesjsharp Done. Normaly you could get it with wide shutter and shallow dof, but I saw EXIF, it more about editing here. --Mile (talk) 09:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you've got better eyesight than I doǃ Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I got glasses since kindergarten. One stuff you can do in makro, in Adobe PS change from 16bits to 32 while editing. Even if original is jpeg.--Mile (talk) 12:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Original is in RAW and available for you as .CR2 or .dng Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is even better, i would start again and put some lower temperature on animal. --Mile (talk) 07:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you were complaining about banding (which I can't see) not WB? How is a temperature you don't like "Overprocessed"? I'm confused. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion Charlesjsharp, suggestion. Also maybe crop borders around, left, up.--Mile (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. Perfect rule of thirds on chameleon's eye. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing sharpness considering the size! The lines Mile marked are very hard to see. I can see them, but I doubt I would have noticed them without his pointing them out, and they are so subtle as not to bother me at all. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles#Family : Chamaeleonidae (Chameleons)

File:Estanque Chinesco, Jardín del Príncipe, Aranjuez, Madrid.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2020 at 17:18:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Spain
Info created by Javier Montes - uploaded by Javierm18 - nominated by Javierm18 -- Javierm18 (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Javierm18 (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor lighting, most of the subject is not well-lit. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Javierm18: it's always motivating for us to see new users submitting images for FPC but this image is indeed far from FP. Apart from the issues KoH mentioned, the image is tilted and the level of detail is poor although your equipment is very good. You applied an extremely high shutter speed (1/2000s) for a static subject, where 1/50s would have been enough (if you would have liked to go for a more artistic shot, you could have used 2s to get a smooth water effect using a ND filter). The high shutter speed forced you to use a high ISO (1100) that you had to compensate later on with strong denoising. The result is that the detail is gone, and just due to wrong camera settings. Before you nominate images here, I recommend you to do that here. Poco a poco (talk) 09:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Poco, although the detail at full res is not that bad IMO. Cmao20 (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tilted --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not super-great as needed for FP. However, you should take some of the critiques from here, edit the file and try submitting it to COM:QIC. It's a large file and might pass there if you do a little bit of work on it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Poco. A shame ... this view has promise. Daniel Case (talk) 05:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kursalon Hübner, Stadtpark, Viena, Austria, 2020-01-31, DD 114-116 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2020 at 18:49:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Austria>
Info Parkside view of the Kursalon (Kursalon Hübner), a music hall located in Vienna, designed by Johann Garben in the style of the Italian Renaissance and built between 1865 and 1867. The Kursalon comprises now four ballrooms on two floors, a 1,000 square metres (11,000 sq ft) large terrace and a restaurant. The Kursalon saw before Covid-19 approximately 500 concerts a year and received over 200,000 visitors. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 03:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The light is beautiful Cmao20 (talk) 06:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed beautiful. --Aristeas (talk) 07:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Light is great. Strange using that lens-borders. 2 notations. --Mile (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mile: Notations fixed Poco a poco (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That on right side could be done better. --Mile (talk) 07:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should look better now, Mile Poco a poco (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 05:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are some visible copyediting issues visible in thumbnail. They're on the right side, just above the right top of the building by the photo's edge. Also, a bit tight crop on the sides. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, that's the feedback above from Mile. I'll rework that area this evening Poco a poco (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Podzemnik: Done Poco a poco (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK now. --Mile (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 07:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PK Thatta asv2020-02 img14 Makli Necropolis.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2020 at 12:32:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Pakistan
Info Entire view (with enclosure's walls) of the Tomb of Mirza Isa Khan Tarkhan ("two-storey tomb") at Makli Necropolis (World Heritage Site in Thatta, Pakistan) --- all by A.Savin --A.Savin 12:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 12:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Very tight crop on the right. Is there any possibility of your extending the photo to the right? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. --A.Savin 23:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful light, sharp and crisp, gives both a good overview of this interesting monument and allows to study fine details. --Aristeas (talk) 07:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite a beautiful, stark picture (except for the litter in the near left), so I'll support in spite of my comment above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. Cmao20 (talk) 08:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. Daniel Case (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File: Scan of back of iPhone 11 Pro Max Space Grey.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2020 at 00:23:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
Info created by Apple Inc. - scanned and uploaded by Dllu - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 00:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 00:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, noisy, underexposed, and many focus stacking errors -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Basile Morin: just curious, where are the focus stacking errors? I didn't use focus stacking since this is a planar object scanned with a flatbed scanner but I stacked several frames to mitigate noise and dust. This was the first thing I did when I bought my brand new phone last year, and the moment I took it out of the box, some pieces of dust from the air had already landed on it (and on my scanner) haha. dllu (t,c) 18:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are kind of artifacts around with blurred sections, for example at the bottom right corner. Looks like focus stacking errors but can be something else, of course -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Basile Morin: I still don't see it. dllu (t,c) 06:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe increase the brightness of your screen? Do you see your picture is underexposed and noisy, at least? -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Basile Morin: I am well aware that the picture is noisy. As for underexposed --- probably, but the phone is a dark grey one. My screen is a fairly nice calibrated IPS one and I have no problems seeing things in dark areas. To be honest this is not a very good photo so I didn't nominate it for QI or FP when I uploaded it. It is just that I don't see any double vision or blurry artifacts that are typical of stacking errors. dllu (t,c) 21:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, black on black background is always very dark -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Basile. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose +1 --Peulle (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A useful image, surely, but I don't see any wow-factor for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dust, scratches, dirt and marks all over the device.--BevinKacon (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pigeon sauvage (Feral pigeon) (5).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2020 at 09:20:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds#Order_:_Columbiformes_(Pigeons_and_Doves)
Info Feral pigeon in front of the group -- Gzen92 ^[discuter] 09:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gzen92 ^[discuter] 09:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting for sure but doesn't wow me, sorry. Perhaps a headshot with lined-up pigeions in the background could work or perhaps the same shot in the other but harsh light. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support My first thought was to dismiss this photo; it's easy to dismiss photos of the common pigeon. However, I imagine with the whole flock following him, this is probably the alpha pigeon, and I further feel like his facial expression is kind of badass. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan, the common pigeon isn't obvious FP material but this one is very sharp and I find the composition, with the blurry flock behind him in the background, quite successful. Cmao20 (talk) 08:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh light, the bird is too ordinary, and the level of blurriness makes the background cluttered in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile.--Ermell (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Ikan, although I accept the validity of the criticisms in the oppose !votes. The bird looks sort of the like the Big Bad in a movie, with his henchmen behind him. Daniel Case (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this "alpha pigeon setting"--Tesla - 💬 01:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile Morin. --Fischer.H (talk) 07:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile --StellarHalo (talk) 08:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gatineau stromatolites[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2020 at 03:41:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

South view
North view

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Quebec
Info: fossilized stromatolites exposed on the bank of the Ottawa river. All by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice work but I'm not sure I see the need for a set seeing that the two images are showing very similar views. I really love the composition of the south view, with the buildings on the skyline and the lovely sweep of the lines in the water, but in comparison the north view seems a bit random in its scope. All in all the first pic is definitely FP to me, the second not so much Cmao20 (talk) 09:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree the first one stands alone and is valuable Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination: thank you for the feedback, will nominate separately. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barge wreck - Sète - October 2020.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2020 at 18:51:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water_transport#Boats
Info created - uploaded - nominated by me. -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very busy photo yet beautifully portrayed.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit chaotic but it suits the subject, doesn't it? --Podzemnik (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The composition is actually really nice. Cmao20 (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like someone is living there with a TV set. --Ivar (talk) 08:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really different. --Aristeas (talk) 09:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I agree, the subject is nice and different but not convinced about the background, too busy and partially is difficult to distinguish subject from background, sorry, I cannot tell you how to do it better, not your fault Poco a poco (talk) 10:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, per resolving the conflict between Podzemink and Poco's take on the background. Daniel Case (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bienenfresser übergibt Beute im FFH-Gebiet Kaiserstuhl.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2020 at 15:12:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Meropidae (Bee-eaters)
Info created & uploaded by Hwbund - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A splendid composition but something odd has happened to the left hand bird's head/eye. Perhpas you can get the image reworked? Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose no new version forthcoming. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support There are some technical imperfections. I think to address Charles' point, the head of the left-hand bird is a little out of focus, and it has been oversharpened slightly to compensate. Overall though this is a well-composed 20mpx picture of some beautiful and colourful birds - if downsized to ~10mpx the technical issues are not visible. So it's clearly an FP to me. Cmao20 (talk) 09:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 12:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the compo, but both bird's heads are out of focus, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Iifar.--Ermell (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The motif and the composition are outstanding--Tesla - 💬 06:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful motif indeed, but the sharpness is not nearly good enough for FP, IMO, even allowing for the fact that it's an action shot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really? When viewed at 6mpx the sharpness seems pretty good overall to me - not perfect but really not too bad at all. I wonder if people would be opposing so much if that smaller version had been presented here. Cmao20 (talk) 12:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't understand that kind of logic. Why should we assess downsampled 6 MP (or further 2 MP) version, if 19,4 MP is original upload? Quality and featured photographic images guideline: Images should not be downsampled (sized down) in order to appear of better quality. --Ivar (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ivar, Because to assess images otherwise is to punish uploaders for being generous in the resolution they provide us with. To judge a 20mpx image at full size by the same standards we would judge a 6mpx image is simply not fair, because the 20mpx image has more useful information. A 20mpx image is magnified considerably when compared to a 6mpx image, which inevitably means more pixel-level defects are visible. But that isn't a fair standard of comparison. If we start acting like a high-resolution image has to be absolutely perfect even at 100%, we *incentivise* rather than deter downsampling, because an objectively-worse downsampled version would draw less criticism. See here for the best explanation of it I have seen. Cmao20 (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reasonable comment, so I looked at a more typical 3600 x 2400 resolution and you can see the problems. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, I don't want to change anyone's mind about it if they still find it too poor quality at lower size. That's just a judgment call that people can legitimately have different views about. I just wanted to make the point that judging it at full res wasn't fair to the picture. Cmao20 (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your 6MP version would make the birds too small for a 2020 FP, IMO, and then it would be more of an issue that the bird on the left's head is in shadow. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In my oppinion, if it's a very difficult motif (and it is definitely one), it should only have a good, but must not have an outstanding technical quality to be an FP. Of course, it's easier to create a super sharp focus-stacking macro with a static motif than a super sharp wildlife-action shot.--Tesla - 💬 20:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Per Ivar. Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Petcon (81243)a.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2020 at 21:00:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family_:_Canidae_(Canids)
Info Bulldogs from "3bulldogges." all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Just a pair of apparently well-known bulldogs. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect amount of DOF. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cute. --Gnosis (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support So chic! 👔💄 Ready for restaurant now 🍴🥂 :-) Basile Morin (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fun! --Podzemnik (talk) 08:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversharpening --Wilfredor (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose They are neither cute nor funny for me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Wilfredor, sorry. Imho FP quality is just not there. --Ivar (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think bulldogs are cute. StellarHalo (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The kind of photo you see on the covers of calendars a lot. Nothing wrong with one being an FP if it's as competently done as this. Daniel Case (talk) 20:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The fine details of the fur/skin look somewhat strange, especially on the face of the right dog. There's not enough "wow" here to compensate for that, in my opinion (although I do appreciate the irony of fashion accessories being equipped with fashion accessories). --El Grafo (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC) BTW: Cuteness is a matter of opinion here: having read about en:Stenotic nares, en:Brachycephalic airway obstructive syndrome and other health issues, I consider the modern incarnations of these breeds pretty much a crime against nature.[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stanford Dish March 2013 HDR 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2020 at 02:07:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Sun
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support compelling mood! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great atmosphere --StellarHalo (talk) 08:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 09:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great mood. --Aristeas (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 23:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:20200910 Schloss Sigmaringen NW-Seite 3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2020 at 11:49:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
Info created, uploaded, nominated by me. -- Zinnmann (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zinnmann (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Verticals distortion problem, little space at the top, i underestand that the low quality details is because its a compact camera. --Wilfredor (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yeah, really weird-looking. Would you like to do some perspective correction to make the photo look more normal? The composition has some potential, though I'm not sure about the right crop~~, or to a lesser extent, the bottom crop~~. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak oppose~~ I love the colours and composition, really I do. And the details are OK for me, i wouldnt call them low quality. But the image is very obviously tilted several degrees counter-clockwise (look at the riverbank), which is such an obvious flaw that it clearly makes it not an FP. Fix the verticals and remove the tilt, and you have a featured picture. Cmao20 (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is FP to me now. In future Zinnmann could you ping me if you make a change that I have requested? Cmao20 (talk) 14:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried to fix the perspective and went for a tighter crop at the bottom and bit mor space in the sky. --Zinnmann (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like this a lot better. At this point, for the unusual view looking up at this Schloss on the hill, I'd support this with all the crops remaining as is, but my only remaining issues are that the buildings on the right seem a bit unsharp though perhaps it's just from haze, and the tops of the Schloss on the left are also a bit unsharp. These things make me wonder whether this is really one of the very best photos on the site, though it's certainly interesting. Perhaps you'd like to try your hand at working on these things. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, distracting blown areas at right. Daniel Case (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saint-Jacques-sur-Coudenberg during civil twilight (DSCF7448).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2020 at 08:52:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Belgium
Info by -- Trougnouf (talk) 08:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Trougnouf (talk) 08:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a shame about the wires, but that's not your fault. Cmao20 (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 10:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 14:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support; there are some slight artifacts or something around the lights on the sides. Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure which lights / artifacts you are referring to, can you make a note on the picture? --Trougnouf (talk) 08:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sultan Amir Ahmad Bathhouse2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2020 at 17:05:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Iran
Info created by Amirpashaei - uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by Amirpashaei -- Amir Pashaei (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Amir Pashaei (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Probably not as sharp around the edges as usual for you, but it's a really big file of a beautiful interior and I certainly think it deserves a star. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support High resolution and amazing details. Cmao20 (talk) 09:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ahmad^talk 20:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tea in action.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2020 at 22:09:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info created by Tesla - uploaded by Tesla - nominated by IntelTesla -- Tesla - 💬 22:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tesla - 💬 22:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment nice try, but looks like shutter speed 1/250 was not fast enough. --Ivar (talk) 08:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I chose the shutter speed 1/250 to get dynamic into the outer drops, while the main spash remains sharp. I'll do some postprocessing and will reupload it.--Tesla - 💬 11:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done, is it better now?--Tesla - 💬 15:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still blurry in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose blurry drops wont work with me, sorry. Not possible to fix with postprocessing. --Ivar (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like it, it has plenty of visual interest and seems well-composed. Cmao20 (talk) 12:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's underexposed. —kallerna (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done, brightend the dark regions--Tesla - 💬 21:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: for comparation: This pic was elected for the main page and is a FP, but also has a bit motion blur.--Tesla - 💬 17:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to say: It was also shot in 2009, so it wouldn't be safe to assume it would pass if nominated at FPC today. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And in any case the exposure seems okay on the glass of wine. Not here -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Splash with motion blur and the light is not so good -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another technical issue: the background is dotted with spots and the cup surrounded by a weird halo, immediately visible on my smartphone. Very likely due to the digital manipulation. I didn't notice at first on my computer, though it becomes obvious now when the exposure is increased or when the brightness of my screen is enhanced. Selective brush? Really awkward -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a version without selective brush in the background, that's the natural background now, it was a black cartoon.--Tesla - 💬 01:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not using diffuse lamps for a studio shot? These flash lights generated parasitic shadows -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The shadow is not too harsh in my eyes, I remember that I used a small softbox, but I don't have mega studio equipment. And yes, one side is darker, but is this such a problem?

Comment Additionally, I only found one other image of such a splash (the one linked above) with good quality, but there're hundreds of FP-quality landscapes and macros, so it would bring a bit variety to FP :) --Tesla - 💬 09:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are more, like this FP for example promoted in 2014, where the drops are not blurry. Two other problems also here: 1) the cup is filled until the top, thing that rarely happens in ordinary times, except by mistake, and thus the subject lacks natural & authenticity, 2) the crop is tight at the top, many drops are out of the frame already, while they are important in the composition (like in the other shots). The harsh shadow is not too obvious on my computer screen, but very visible instantly on my mobile phone, then yes it is a problem. Concerning the diversity of candidatures, I think originality is always taken into consideration by the reviewers, however the quality should be up to the standards, this is a main requirement. I would suggest to try again with a fixed diffuse lamp (easy to make, several ones if possible) and a background of a lighter color. Interesting idea, but not very well done this time -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you found one other good pic in category splashes (I didn't look there jet but added my photo now to this cat now). There are other good splashes in this cat, but from flickr. I think, you would agree that a splash shooting is more unique on FP than a casual ladscape/macro. You can create a good macro of a static motif by following rules, but you don't have to be creative for that.
To adress the problems: 1) The cup is filled because of the piece of sugar was dropped in. Thats Archimedes' principle :) 2) The outer drops aren't important to the motif, but that's a personal feeling, not an objective problem. I don't know what are your smarthphone screen-settings but my desktop screen shows all shadows smoothly. The review should refer to a screen described in here, not a smartphone screen. By the way, I'll appreciate more votes. :)--Tesla - 💬 11:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You want more votes maybe, but be grateful already a reviewer like Pseudo Classes who never voted before in FPC suddenly comes to support a single picture, that is yours. Such singular contributions almost never happen ordinarily.
Nearly all the nominators here find their own candidatures special. Similarly we saw a bench recently, that was considered very important by its photographer, for the number written on it.
The smartphone you're suspecting of wrong settings is excellent and has just revealed the dirty spots you've corrected above.
The screen of my computer also displays the inhomogeneous background when the exposure of your picture is corrected. The drops then appear in a gray area, while the right side is black.
There's water out of the cup due to the splash yes, but also the level of liquid inside seems abnormally excessive.
Flickr pictures of good splashes are totally valid in FPC, contrary to QIC. There are a lot in Pixabay too -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that 'pseudo classes' was motivated to promote my picture because I promoted a few images of him in QI. So that's ordinarily in fact though it's not the best practice to selectively promote or oppose pictures of certain users. I didn't know, that flickr pics are prohibited on QI, but allowed on FP. But that does not change the fact, that there are only very rarely splashes as FP, and this pic is more unique than the pic of the bench... I think the discussion goes in rounds here too, so we should just wait :) Regards, --Tesla - 💬 13:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The user Pseudo Classes voted here but seems totally unaware of the rules. You reviewed pictures uploaded by this person on QIC that come from Flickr, maybe this selective vote should be considered canvassed. The author of the bench wrote "it doesn't seem like a small thing to me, even if on the surface it may seem just an insignificant bench", so she certainly found her candidature exceptional for subjective reasons -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just very short: I've never asked the voter below for voting, so his/her actions were maybe not the best practice because personally motivated, but not canvassed, because of personal motivation. Again, I think it's the best to accept the votes in both directions and just wait.--Tesla - 💬 15:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no doubt that this green spot would never have appeared otherwise, but I don't care 🧸 🎠 -- Basile Morin (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Agree with Basile, sorry, but still I enjoy this kind of shots Poco a poco (talk) 09:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Great shooting technique! Pseudo Classes (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am not of the opinion that the drops must all be completely frozen. Could be brighter at the left side but still FP for me.--Ermell (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Underexposed, could expect better quality from a studio shot. —kallerna (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile. For FP, I would like the standard to be set higher than blurry splash. StellarHalo (talk) 08:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kallerna. Kruusamägi (talk) 03:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose An idea worth trying, this sort of photography-class project, as it can work out quite well and we don't see too many of them here. However, perhaps I'm spoiled by photography magazines, but I think we could easily expect to see one of these with crisper detail and less noise. Daniel Case (talk) 05:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wroclaw- Most Grunwaldzki.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2020 at 08:45:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Poland
Info created by Jar.ciurus - uploaded by Jar.ciurus - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 08:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 08:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk)`
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice light. Cmao20 (talk) 09:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lo and behold! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ahmad^talk 20:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 23:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wroclaw Most Mlynski w porannej mgle przed switem.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2020 at 14:40:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Poland
Info created by Jar.ciurus - uploaded by Jar.ciurus - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 14:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 14:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry but The noise reduction has been so strong that I do not know if it is a photo or a painting --Wilfredor (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support What do I do when I learn that the ice cream man is a serial killer? Ice-scream -Killarnee (C•T•U) 18:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a dust spot above the left corner of the roof of a building directly across the bridge. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done (if you meant that white thing) --Andrei (talk) 08:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nope. I'll do my best to mark it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Took me some time, but fixed as well --Andrei (talk) 09:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice. -- -donald- (talk) 10:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The noise reduction is a bit much for my taste but I think this is still FP. Cmao20 (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree. The noise actually stands out at some parts of the image, but this does not diminish the high quality of the image. Thanks for uploading it! --Mosbatho (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unbalanced composition. The cut off right side is not working for me -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 02:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another voter please :-) Basile Morin (talk) 06:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose nice atmosphere, but per Basile, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 09:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile, too Poco a poco (talk) 09:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good atmosphere. --Augustgeyler (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile. We had an FP nomination of a very similar image months ago and while this one is better overall, I don't like the right side crop here either. StellarHalo (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Great atmosphere and the composition, though unbalanced, works for me! —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 00:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The unbalanced composition actually enhances the noir character of the scene ... it's easy to see this, modern road signs notwithstanding, and imagine this as a scene from a movie set during the war, with our main character, carrying information vital to the survival of the resistance, having reached this point after furtively moving through the city streets, dodging police patrols as it is well past curfew, sees across the bridge, his/her stated rendezvous point, a shadowy, backlit figure in a trench coat. Is it the Gestapo plant s/he fears, or the contact s/he hopes for? S/he moves forward, knowing that s/he must commit to either fate ... Daniel Case (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for such a sensitive comment, Daniel! By a pure coincidence, headquarters of Festung Breslau was located on this street, just 100 meters away (in the Former Augustian Monastery in Wrocław). en:Hermann Niehoff met Soviet officers there on the 6th of May 1945, 3 hours before the city surrender.--Andrei (talk) 09:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Are the supporters OK with a small but unambiguous dust spot remaining in an FP? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Canada goose (Branta canadensis), Lake Victoria, Christchurch, New Zealand 04.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2020 at 06:22:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes#Genus_:_Branta
Info All by me. It's a Canada goose on Lake Victoria, Christchurch, New Zeland.-- Podzemnik (talk) 06:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite commons but I like the evening light and the sharpness.-- Podzemnik (talk) 06:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light. The resolution is not huge but the photo is very sharp indeed. Cmao20 (talk) 11:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good quality, but crop not --Mile (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 8 MP shot of a very common bird, nothing special. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination @King of Hearts: Okey, I'll try again and get more MP. --Podzemnik (talk) 03:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Araneus diadematus - Keila.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2020 at 13:25:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida#Family_:_Araneidae_(Orb-weaver_Spiders)
Info Focus stacked of 12 images. All by Ivar (talk) 13:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 13:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice work Cmao20 (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good stack Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would have expected the hind legs to be sharp too. Was this taken freehand?--Ermell (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ermell: Nope, she hide away after 12-th image. Nevertheless I'm quite happy with the result. --Ivar (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for the info. Not easy sometimes. --Ermell (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 01:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida#Family_:_Araneidae_(Orb-weaver_Spiders)

File:Chinese pavilion - Wilhelm Jeremias Müller - Karlsruhe 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2020 at 05:53:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 05:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simple but nice. Cmao20 (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Wow factor is middling, and sharpness of the edges/corners is below what is typically acceptable at FP for 24 MP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special. —kallerna (talk) 12:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kallerna. Just a well-done shot of a small building. Daniel Case (talk) 05:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iglesia de San Pedro, Viena, Austria, 2020-01-31, DD 89-91 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2020 at 08:21:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings/Ceilings#Austria
Info Dome of St. Peter's Church (known as "Peterskirche"), Vienna. In the current location of the church have been church buildings since the Middle Age, but the construction of the current Baroque church, with a design inspired by the St. Peter's Basilica of the Vatican started in 1701 (under en:Gabriele MontaniGabriele Montani, replaced by Johann Lukas von Hildebrandt in 1703), was mostly finished in 1722 and consecrated in 1733 to the Holy Trinity. The turreted dome was mainly designed by Matthias Steinl, who was also responsible for the interior decoration and the pews with their fabulous cherubic heads. The frescoes were originally painted by the famous Italian Andrea Pozzo, whose paintings were removed after his death. As a result, in 1713, Johann Michael Rottmayr was able to start a completely new set. The fresco in the cupola represents the Coronation of Our Lady. On the triumphal arch one can see the coat of arms of emperor Leopold I. In the spandrels around the dome are portrayals of the four Evangelists and four Fathers of the Church, painted by the Viennese artist J.G. Schmidt. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 08:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 08:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful ceiling and of course a very fine capture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Extraordinary. Will vote for this at POTY. Cmao20 (talk) 09:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know, Cmao20, I just need other 1347 people that concur with you :) Poco a poco (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I gave it a try freehand a few years ago but it didn't come close to this quality level.--Ermell (talk) 09:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 07:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Maria Carrara Verdi, Barberina Strepponi, Giuseppe Verdi, Giuditta Ricordi, Teresa Stolz, Umberto Campanari, Giulio Ricordi, Leopoldo Metlicovitz (1900) - Archivio storico Ricordi FOTO003107 - Restoration.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2020 at 08:28:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Historical#1850-1900, I guess? Any other suggestions?
Info created by Giulio Rossi - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course this is a great document, and it should definitely be a VI, but I'm not sure what to make of the blown light in the middle. Who's the man standing behind Verdi? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Umberto Campanari. Verdi's lawyer. As for the blown light - this is from 1900; that's.... just about when this sort of image starts to become practical, Timothy H. O'Sullivan's incredible work notwithstanding. It's in the grounds of Verdi's home, and it's well composed, there's only so much you can expect from this era of photography outside the studio. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support OK. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above. Cmao20 (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good restauration.--Tesla - 💬 08:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looks like part of Giulio Ricordi's moustache has been erased during the restore process.--BevinKacon (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @BevinKacon: Good catch! Fixed. Looked a bit too similar to some other damage Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Webysther 20190306143154 - Catedral Metropolitana de São Paulo.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2020 at 10:09:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Brazil
Info Yes, I know the crop is a little bit tight at the top, but I still think this deserves the star. The elevated perspective makes it more interesting than the usual ground-level view of this cathedral and adds up to a more dramatic photo - I don't think it can be said that this is short on wow-factor. Plus it's really nice to have a high-quality photo of a non-European religious building. created by Webysther - uploaded by Webysther - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 10:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 10:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a bit tight top and bottom. Landscape doesn't seem the right choice here. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. It's a drone pic from a low altitude; I guess more distance would be difficult due to obstacles (trees?). --A.Savin 14:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+1. I noted the tightness of composition that Charles points out, but it seems (looking on the internet) that there is nothing better, so I suspect there are obstacles in the way. I think it's the kind of thing where you are always going to have to make compromises to get everything in the frame. Cmao20 (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sky noisy and there are a lot of red "dead pixels" in the sky --Llez (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to fix this later. Webysther has not been active since August 2019, so I don't think we are likely to get it fixed by him soon. Cmao20 (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support just clean those "reds". I like pano more than portrait here - do drones have portrait mode anyway ? --Mile (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Llez, Mile, the red pixels in the sky should be gone now. Cmao20 (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition and nice view. I wish there were less noise and more sharpness. --XRay ^talk 10:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm torn. I really like the photo, but I don't like the top or bottom crops. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Top and bottom crop are indeed unlucky, but I like the contrast between architecture styles and the light. --Aristeas (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support And it's a drone picture --Wilfredor (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 23:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ранкові кольори у заказнику Бобровня.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2020 at 10:09:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Ukraine
Info A beautiful, misty and atmospheric landscape from a Ukrainian nature reserve - one of the WLE submissions from a couple of years back. created by Alex Arendar - uploaded by Alex Arendar - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 10:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 10:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the birds --Llez (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support good one --Mile (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. I think it should have additional categories for sunrises and mist. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek, the requested categories are added now. Cmao20 (talk) 06:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful mood photo..--Famberhorst (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 23:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bigfin reef squid (11760).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2020 at 16:57:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals#Class_:_Cephalopoda
Info all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cmao20 (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm concerned this is one of those images we're seeing a lot of where the subject has been aggressively sharpened and the background aggressively smoothed. Which is fine to a point, but perhaps not if it gives a strange impression of what it looks like in the tank of water. Does it really have that grainy texture round its eye, or is that just sharpened noise? The grain wouldn't be a problem if it affected the whole image, but if we smooth the background, we are sort of saying that the squid is grainy. Is it? There's a strange echo line on the rear of its left fin. What do you think that is? -- Colin (talk) 07:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question What do you think caused all the horizontal lines in the upper right corner? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Question And the white pixels in the same region --Llez (talk) 12:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Colin, Ikan Kekek, and Llez: The original version before sharpening/denoising/other adjustments were applied is in the file history if you're curious. As to how much sharpening (or denoising) is appropriate for such an image, I feel like there's often a preference to err on the side of oversharpening some kinds of animals at FPC. I'll admit some ignorance about this one in particular as this is one of the only pictures I've taken at an aquarium (or of anything in water) that I've liked enough to try go through with the post-processing. The faint lines in the top-right are just good ol' iso banding (dark, and need a high shutter for the always-moving squid). And the white specks are just things in the water that were probably reduced by sharpening.

So I've uploaded two new versions (before reverting to the originally nominated version for now): The first one redoes the denoising to better address the iso banding, and does not do any additional sharpening. the second version takes a somewhat less aggressive sharpening approach with this revised denoising. Thoughts? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the denoised one without sharpening. But in your processing, you seem to have lost some colour from the squid, which had red (round the eye) and turquoise and some brown on its head. Did you apply a huge amount of chroma NR or desaturate some colours? I wonder also if it is lightened too much, bleaching colour. I don't think the sharpening is an improvement, just giving a gritty illusion to satisfy pixel peeping. Wrt specks in the water, I don't see a problem with eliminating them much like removing sensor dust spots -- they aren't the subject and are just transitory. -- Colin (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Question Why didn't you remove the white dots? --Llez (talk) 07:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - In the two alternative versions that aren't subject to the same sharpening, so shouldn't be reduced to a dot. I mean, they're still basically dots, but they're things floating in the water. I can do it, of course, but in the middle of a discussion about a realistic depiction I wouldn't assume remove the specks floating in water. Does that make sense? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 07:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rhododendrites, I think I have a slight preference for the first alternate version, but I'm noticing what looks like a halo to the left of the tentacles in both versions, though this is much more prominent in the version that was nominated. But perhaps that's something natural? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok. New version uploaded. I think this addresses the various concerns. It is denoised, not sharpened, with little specks removed, and some selective chromatic issues reduced. What it does not address is the halo to the left of the tentacles and elsewhere. I have to think this is part of the animal, as there's no selective masking and the shutter it doesn't quite look like blur or chromatic aberration. Let's call this version final now. Pinging voters/commenters: @Colin, Ikan Kekek, Llez, The Cosmonaut, StellarHalo, XRay, Martin Falbisoner, Johann Jaritz, and Cmao20: . I suppose we'll see if there really is a preference for extra sharpening. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support and thanks for your extra efforts. I hope you are happy with the "final version". -- Colin (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Colin. I like that I can really feel the presence of this clever animal looking at the photographer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 09:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 20:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:IMG Kühltürme 6170.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2020 at 17:27:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Industry#Germany/Phillipsburg
Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice mood. I'm sure some will complain that WB is too yellow compared to reality, but for me it's valid use of artistic license. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, the white balance is nice for me. Cmao20 (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nuclear winter Daniel Case (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fritz Quant Steipe Lithografie.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2020 at 22:29:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Exteriors
Info created by Fritz Quant - reproduced from an original lithography, uploaded and nominated by -- Palauenc05 (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A fine lithography, reproduced very well. --Aristeas (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File: Man biking on Recife city.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2020 at 00:36:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Others
Info created and uploaded by Wilfredor - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 00:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 00:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colorful and pleasant. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just because the handrail is blue too! Please add geo tag though to set up a good example of well described FP:) --Podzemnik (talk) 09:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good scenery! ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 12:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks Arion for this nomination, you have a special gift to identify images that I would never have nominated. This image transmits peace to me in a wonderful city not only because of its natural landscapes but also because of the kindness and cordiality of the people. --Wilfredor (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The colours are what makes it work, with the bright splash of orange from the bike. Cmao20 (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but one of the very best on Commons??? --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Personal rughts template?--Llez (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Uoaei1.--Ermell (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the scenery and the idea is creative. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's Christmas, and so Recife looks utopian ... Daniel Case (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support This photo has grown on me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good, but not outstanding. --Milseburg (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ferry Stella in the Archipelago Sea - August 2020.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2020 at 07:37:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water_transport#Boats
Info Ferry Stella in the Archipelago Sea, Finland. Taken aboard a passing cruise ship in the early morning. All by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many visible artefacts, sorry. See especially along diagonal lines such as the rear crane.--Peulle (talk) 08:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment now that you mention it. Didn't notice that before, sorry. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sea caves Cape Greco 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2020 at 12:09:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Cyprus
Info created, uploaded and nominated by kallerna —kallerna (talk) 12:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I enjoy the combination of the waves and the sunset light. I was soaking wet after this frame... —kallerna (talk) 12:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Creative and technically well executed. I hope people don't complain about the blown sky on the left and focus instead on the beautiful overall effect. Cmao20 (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the current crop. The column is too close to the center, causing the left and right sides to compete for attention. A rule of thirds crop would be better. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think for the hoizontal balance to work better, we need more space on the left. Assuming this was not captured, I'm satisfied enough with the centered composition. BTW, this one is also an intriguing shot, and might worth the star regardless of this nomination. Tomer T (talk) 10:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 08:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reminds me of vividly of days at the sea … --Aristeas (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 03:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per King; the left side is also a little too bright for me. Daniel Case (talk) 04:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Augustgeyler (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Really a bit bright on the left, but outstanding enough for me. --Milseburg (talk) 11:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Really nice composition. A little bit overexposed at the left and may be tilted CW. --XRay ^talk 08:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Webysther 20190718112849 - Santana de Parnaíba.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2020 at 02:25:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created and uploaded by Webysther - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 02:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 02:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO a really nice church interior. Obviously doesn't have the same dynamic range or resolution as stitched interiors like Diliff's and DXR's but we shouldn't be demanding that of all photos in the genre. This one is well composed and also it's a non-European church (Brazil). Cmao20 (talk) 11:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull light. Are all church interiors worth the status? —kallerna (talk) 06:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharpness is not impressive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. The FP bar for church interiors is very high.--Peulle (talk) 08:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 13:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gatineau stromatolites.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2020 at 01:28:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Quebec
Info: fossilized stromatolites exposed on the bank of the Ottawa river. All by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my vote on the set, this one is really nice in terms of composition Cmao20 (talk) 06:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support agreed. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, this one is impressive. --Aristeas (talk) 09:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support @The Cosmonaut: Please use the widepano option for images longer than 4:1, and otherwise panorama for images between 2:1 and 4:1. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I wish it would be sharper. --XRay ^talk 07:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 08:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Old Jaffa in the evening.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2020 at 11:29:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Israel
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark, sorry. We don't see much here but the sunset colours which are nice but not enough for FP by themselves. Perhaps HDR could work. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good composition, but the dark areas are underexposed and the sharpness could be improved. --XRay ^talk 07:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 08:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Trougnouf (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Man on a motorcycle holding a flag of Laos in front of green karst peaks at the top of Mount Nam Xay, Vang Vieng, Laos.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2020 at 00:09:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Laos
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was feeling a sense of deja vu, but I suppose I saw this at QIC, or did you previously nominate a similar file that didn't pass at FPC? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very likely at QIC, as this one is unique in its kind and has never shown up previously. Is it possible you confuse with that one, top-down view with people and lao flag? Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, not possible. I probably just saw this at QIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment breathtaking scenery. I'd love to support a version without the guy --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per Martin Falbisoner. Also, I don't think those environmentally polluting engines belong in that vulnerable biotope!--Famberhorst (talk) 09:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Green karst peaks seen from the top of Mount Nam Xay a sunny morning during the monsoon Vang Vieng Laos.jpg Thanks, Martin and Famberhorst for the feedback -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cmao20 (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I would support such an image without the guy. So it looks like a tourist photograph. The motorcycle seems to be part of the equipment of the mountain summit. --XRay ^talk 11:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is the motorcycle a replacement for a cross? There is a chain at the front wheel. --XRay ^talk 11:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This chain is certainly a security for those who get on the saddle, because the slope is steep as a cliff just behind. There's no track to ride a motorbike to that place, accessible only via a slippery climb. The vehicle was routed there some years ago by experimented climbers equipped with ropes. Unexpected item whose purpose may be to question its origin -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per XRay, a cool Facebook image, but the guys spoils the scene IMHO Poco a poco (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Poco --StellarHalo (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is Basile exempt from the "only two active nominations per user" rule? StellarHalo (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He only nominated 2, the other is a third party nomination. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I asked the guy not to stare at my camera but he didn't listen 🙉 ;-) Thanks everyone for the votes and subjective reviews -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roof of the qom grand bazaar.jpg (delist), delisted and replaced[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2020 at 17:25:08

Info wider and more resolution (Original nomination)

Delist and replace -- Amir Pashaei (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to replace this picture with this picture.--Amir Pashaei (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delist and replace Poco a poco (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Cayambe (talk) 05:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not so sure. The smaller photo has a better sky peeking through the ceiling, which gives a nice colour contrast. The bigger one has blown sky.--Peulle (talk) 06:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace . --Gnosis (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Peulle, other than the higher resolution I honestly prefer the existing version. Cmao20 (talk) 09:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Ermell (talk) 10:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Peulle and Cmao20. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace Better framing (more space on both sides), higher resolution -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace The new one allows better appreciation of the detail. Daniel Case (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless the original had false colour or light effect, then it is the superior image and the only thing in this one's favour is resolution and some detail. The glass in the other one was lit up by the light whereas with this one the glass isn't lit up at all. -- Colin (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel that the lighting in the existing version reveals far more depth and texture than the newer version. The existing version is breathtaking, and the splashes of blue amid the yellows are critical. The newer version is certainly valuable, but it doesn't have as strong a three-dimensional look as the original. --Bobulous (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 8 delist, 4 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /--A.Savin 08:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Steppe buzzard (Buteo buteo vulpinus).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2020 at 14:34:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Accipitridae
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice. Please check my notes. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, sorted. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 09:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cmao20 (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 13:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Quite nice, but some issues with the claws. HDR? --Peulle (talk) 08:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Higher F no (so higher ISO) might have brought claws into focus, but I'm quite close. HDR not a solution is it? Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 07:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family : Accipitridae

File:Town hall, Christchurch City, New Zealand.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2020 at 19:50:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#New_Zealand
Info All by me. It's a town hall in Christchurch, New Zealand. -- Podzemnik (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 07:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good. I'm not quite sure if the "ghost" at the left can be removed accurately, but if I were the photographer, I would have given it a try at least. --A.Savin 14:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cmao20 (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 20:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some technical shortcomings, but understandable as the inevitable results of a long exposure like this. Daniel Case (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 07:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Panorama of Stockholm - August 2020.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2020 at 06:54:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Sweden
Info Panorama of Stockholm, Sweden: Grand Hôtel, National Museum of Fine Arts, af Chapman; all by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but not exceptional enough for FP. —kallerna (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose +1 --Peulle (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Soufli - Vasileos Georgiou Street and Papanastasiou Street.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2020 at 23:32:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Greece
Info Streetview of Soufli, a small city in northeastern Greece, once a european centre of silk production on a side track of the Oriental Railway - created / uploaded / nominated by Neptuul (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Neptuul (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Too much negative space at the right, should crop out a bit for balance. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks --Neptuul (talk) 10:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No wow for me.--Peulle (talk) 07:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, there is nothing special (for FP) and it isn't QI. There are JPEG artifacts and details are missing. --XRay ^talk 08:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per XRay. --Basotxerri (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. The composition is fine, but nothing close to exceptional, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks. --Neptuul (talk) 09:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A fine photo but I'm not sure what about it makes it one of the most exceptional photos on Commons. Cmao20 (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:NIND MVB-Bombardement ISO200.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2020 at 08:55:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1600-1700
Info by -- Trougnouf (talk) 08:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Trougnouf (talk) 08:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question How large (height and width) is the original painting? --StellarHalo (talk) 06:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. It is described on https://www.brusselscitymuseum.brussels/en/discover/masterpiece/the-bombing-in-1695 but the dimensions are not mentioned. I emailed the museum to get an answer. --Trougnouf (talk) 06:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They responded :) 146 x 180 cm --Trougnouf (talk) 13:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Maybe not as high-res as some paintings we've seen here, but for me it's big enough to appreciate the artwork, and the quality of the reproduction is good. Cmao20 (talk) 09:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao; a dramatic artwork. --Aristeas (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry. This digital reproduction is a bit small for a painting of that size. The quality is not quite there. The painting itself is really not special compared to other paintings of the time period. Furthermore, the event depicted was not really important from the historical lens. StellarHalo (talk) 00:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is a link you can read up on: en:Bombardment of Brussels. The destruction of the en:Grand Place is really important from the historical lens. This painting is the only existing image of its destruction. See also: why the Brussels Museum calls it a masterpiece on page 9 --Trougnouf (talk) 08:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Part of a city got destroyed and then it was quickly rebuilt. That was it. Important for Brussels, sure. For the history of Europe, not so much. This event was a minor military action in one of the multiple European cabinet wars of the time period and did not affect the final political outcomes. Overall, it was just a small footnote in history. There are many other much more destructive sacks of cities with higher fatalities and impact such as the Sack of Magdeburg and the Spanish Fury at Antwerp to name a few. Also, the painting itself mostly just shows the Grand Place on fire as the main subject and the lack of prominent human figures means the emotional and dramatic impacts are limited. StellarHalo (talk) 11:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support per Cmao, but conceding that it is on the small side. Daniel Case (talk) 02:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not only is the file small, but the painting is quite sizable. There's also what I believe to be multi-colored CA in much of the upper part of the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per small size/CA noted by others. -- Colin (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 17:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abandoned bee honeycomb.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2020 at 19:02:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family : Apidae (Bumble Bees, Honey Bees, Carpenter Bees, Cuckoo Bees, Orchid Bees, and Stingless Bees)
Info Backlighting for this abandoned honeycomb. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely something new and interesting Cmao20 (talk) 09:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ahmad^talk 20:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought at first it was some weird creature's tongue. Daniel Case (talk) 04:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods#Family : Apidae (Bumble Bees, Honey Bees, Carpenter Bees, Cuckoo Bees, Orchid Bees, and Stingless Bees)

File:Kõrgem Kunstikool Pallas 003-raamatukogu pano.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2020 at 02:20:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Estonia
Info created by Lauri Veerde - uploaded & nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The checkerboard pattern on the floor makes for a dazzling display. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like the room, the books and magazines, the sculptures and the slice of life. Also very good quality. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like this shot. But i miss true EXIF; lens, focal and to finish it in RGB space. --Mile (talk) 08:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Please, could you explain how it was done? (lens, focal, DoF). Especially if all these poses are natural or planned. --Wilfredor (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Mostly acted, but there are exeptions (for example with this image he told there was a big event going on and he took hundreds of photos with higher ISO to not have problems with all the movement going on). He uses Sony A7R III, Canon 8-15mm f/4 fisheye lens & Nodal Ninja panoramic head. He usually shoots at 13mm in 6 directions + one down. Standard is 3 images in each position (+-2 EV) and so in total one panorama image consists of 21 photos. For post-processing he uses Lightroom, Ptgui, SNS-HDR, Photmatix, Aurora HDR, Photoshop, Topaz Labs plug-in’s or whatever is needed. Kruusamägi (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would put at least that focal and camera into. --Mile (talk) 06:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Still a valuable and quality image for the subject even if staged --StellarHalo (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kõrgem Kunstikool Pallas 010-ateljee pano.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2020 at 02:26:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People at work
Info created by Lauri Veerde - uploaded & nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose compared to some of the other 360° panoramas we've seen from the same author, this seems much less carefully composed. Feels like a snapshot to me. --El Grafo (talk) 08:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per El Grafo. There aren't any technical problems I can see, but the two people in the center are awful close to the camera ... one's instinct, especially these days, is to step back and give them a little space. Daniel Case (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tabatabaee mosque at Fatima Masumeh Shrine2, qom, iran.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2020 at 10:22:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Iran
Info created by Amirpashaei - uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by Amirpashaei -- Amir Pashaei (talk) 10:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Amir Pashaei (talk) 10:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good photo but is it really different enough from this to justify another FP? Cmao20 (talk) 11:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks dear Mr Cmao20. I think they are different in the top, but I don't know the routine of FP nomination in this situations.--Amir Pashaei (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Agree with Cmao20, too similar to previous FP image. --Gnosis (talk) 02:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's similar but we're looking down a different door, so I'm OK with it. Showing a building from different perspectives is quite common, like my recent Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/James H. Clark Center. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great and dazzling, and I agree with KoH. This is similar to when we've given the star to photos looking down the nave of a cathedral in one direction and the other. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO different enough, and oh so sparkly :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per KoH. --Aristeas (talk) 08:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tawny-crowned Honeyeater 2 - Maddens Plains.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2020 at 12:34:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Meliphagidae_(Honeyeaters)
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Ivar (talk) 12:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 12:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Never seen this bird, but looking at other images online white balance is way off. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: Morning light at wintertime... the light is warm and smooth. --Ivar (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think so. An hour after sunrise. I'm sure others will Google Tawny-crowned Honeyeater and let's see what they think. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp and Cmao20: The color temperature of daylight varies with the time of day. It tends to be around 2,000 K shortly after sunrise or before sunset, around 3,500 K during "golden hour", and around 5,500 K during midday (it can also change significantly with altitude, latitude, and weather conditions). This calculator shows, that the sun was at shooting moment at alitude 9-10°. At this sun's altitude the daylight has a color temperature 3500 K, which is defined as light of the "golden hour". --Ivar (talk) 10:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Abstain~~ Charles makes a good point, I won't vote till it can be established whether the colours are correct. Cmao20 (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's IMO probable that the bird actually does look like this during golden hour. I still get Charles' point but overall I think we should trust JJ Harrison's judgment that the colours are OK Cmao20 (talk) 06:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support see second and third birfd in first row here: [2] they look very similar to the FPC here. Seven Pandas (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do they? I see white feathers. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's not surprising for white feathers to look yellowish in golden hour sunlight. Good photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support: per Ikan Kekek --The Cosmonaut (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Quality is good but not as superb as we have seen frequently in JJ Harrison's images Poco a poco (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jekleni most pri Radečah (Iron bridge on Sava river at Radeče; IG. GRIDL fabrik, 1894).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2020 at 16:49:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges ž
Info Iron bridge on Sava river at Radeče; 1894. fisheye shot - will stay in this shape, my work. --Mile (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good, creative use of fisheye. Cmao20 (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much distortion of reality for me. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good composition, but I see multicolored CA in the wood. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment True, on left side. I will remove when on PC. If any other place mark. --Mile (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ikan Kekek check now. --Mile (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see some in the middle, some on the right side. I'll try to mark some spots, but in general, this is an issue in the foreground and arguably near middleground. The further away the wood is, the less visible the problem is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see, i was editing trees (forest), will try to solve that today.--Mile (talk) 07:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek i try to solve some. I think its not CA, i saw other shots, its on the edge where fisheye lose resolution and result of moire came out. --Mile (talk) 09:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK. But my feeling is that this is a very good composition and yet I find whatever is happening to the wood quite distracting. I'll look at the photo again tomorrow and see if I change my mind. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others --Milseburg (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 07:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vliegenzwam (Amanita muscaria). Locatie De Famberhorst. 27-09-2020 (d.j.b.).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2020 at 15:49:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family : Amanitaceae
Info Amanita muscaria between autumn leaves and a chestnut.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality and colourful. Cmao20 (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ouststanding. Seven Pandas (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would be good if halos removed around all the white projections at the margins of the mushroom. We already have seven FPs of this species. Could delist and replace File:Fly Agaric mushroom 04.jpg? Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I don't see any halos. Please post a note.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked three places where there are a small focus-stacking errors which look like halos. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Looks more like the faded colors of the leaves in the background.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check the individual photo with the edge of the mushroom in focus. Was the 'halo' there? I suspect notǃ Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per others including Charles' delisting suggestion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. --Aristeas (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan Kekek Poco a poco (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support But get rid of the halos, which go all around the perimeter of the mushroom. Daniel Case (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Small correction. --Famberhorst (talk) 05:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Temporary oppose. Unfortunately Famberhorst, you've reduced the halo effect, but there are now visible dark circles from the cloning tool. Just meeds 20 minutes of boring rework! Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*

Done. Minor fixes. Been busy for almost an hour.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I expected this nomination, since i saw this picture as a QI candidate -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Petite Venise depuis le pont de la rue des Écoles (Colmar) (2).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2020 at 14:16:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info Little Venice from the rue des Écoles bridge in Colmar (Haut-Rhin, France). -- Gzen92 ^[discuter] 14:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gzen92 ^[discuter] 14:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strong halo effect due highlight tweaking, unfortunate light. —kallerna (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I made changes without saturation, the photo is better? It's recoverable? Gzen92 ^[discuter] 07:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is a nice scene, but the houses feel more luminous than the sky. I'm guessing this is the result of zonal tone remapping ("HDR" effect)? --Bobulous (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes HDR (without, it was not good). I made changes, the photo is better? It's recoverable? Gzen92 ^[discuter] 07:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others. The image isn't that bad, simply it isn't good enough for a FP. Overall a bit too dark and presence of noise in the sky, too. --Basotxerri (talk) 10:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unfortunately per Bastoxerri, a nice composition but just a little bit dark and uninviting for me. Cmao20 (talk) 06:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination thank you for your clarification. Gzen92 ^[discuter] 11:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Calidris alba group edit.jpg (delist), delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2020 at 08:38:26

Info Quite small. Half the birds are not sharp. It's just a group of birds. No wow factor. Distracting seaweeds. Two birds and a seaweed got cropped and then badly cloned out. (Original nomination)
Delist Not one of the best images on here --StellarHalo (talk) 08:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist poor composition. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I like the original version better. This doesn't suck and was probably a good photo in 2009, but I agree that it's not an FP now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Kruusamägi (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above. --Cayambe (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above, it's not terrible but there is nothing special about it. I might have voted to keep if more of the birds were looking at the camera. Cmao20 (talk) 06:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I agree.--Peulle (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Daniel Case (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 9 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /--A.Savin 13:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aythya novaeseelandiae, Lake Victoria, Christchurch, New Zealand.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2020 at 07:50:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes#Genus_:_Aythya
Info All by me. This is New Zealand Scaup, en endemic New Zealand duck. We don't have a FP of this species so I thought this one would be a good addition to our Aythya gallery. -- Podzemnik (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the sharpness, the light and the reflection. -- Podzemnik (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 08:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support movement good Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 09:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cmao20 (talk) 10:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Claude Monet - Haystacks.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2020 at 08:06:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Exteriors#Landscapes
Info Meules (Haystacks). The most expensive of the famous Haystacks series of paintings by French Impressionist painter Claude Monet. Sold at Sotheby's for $110.7 millions on May 14, 2019. Currently in private collection. created by Claude Monet - uploaded by StellarHalo - nominated by StellarHalo -- StellarHalo (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important info: This version actually has a thin bottom part cropped out (most likely the fault of Sotheby's). I also uploaded another smaller version that has that part but crops out the right side instead. I am nominating this version because it is larger and the crop is less destructive.

Support --StellarHalo (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It still does not explain why this but not any of the other thirty versions (many of those have a good quality too). Have you thought about a set? --Andrei (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, out of the handful that qualify for FP on technical basis alone, I believe this version's lighting best conveys the spirit of the series. Would cherrypicking the best ones for nomination qualify as a set? StellarHalo (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not, there needs to be a coherent message, and preferable for paintings the reproductions should be done by one person/company because we expect a set to be consistent in quality. But cherry-picking a few to nominate individually is fine. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per KoH, unfortunately for the set it would have to be all-or-nothing, but this painting is great and really conveys a lot about the overall style. Cmao20 (talk) 06:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 09:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think it's really right to award a star to an incomplete reproduction. I think that's below the standard of excellence we should demand for reproductions of flat artworks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This view is entirely fair. Though keep in mind that the few available reproductions of this Haystack version each has a small part cropped out, most likely due to the fact that it has always been in private hands. StellarHalo (talk) 11:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Understood. Regardless of the outcome of this nomination, if this is the best available reproduction, it should be nominated at COM:VIC. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:09, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Epipactis palustris - Keila.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2020 at 05:49:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family_:_Orchidaceae
Info Flower of marsh helleborine (size nearly 2 cm, focus stacked of 30 images). All by Ivar (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice background color choice (presuming it was a choice) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clear FP Cmao20 (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Asparagales#Family_:_Orchidaceae

File:Salses-le-Château - Forteresse 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2020 at 12:09:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#France
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful, colourful panorama with a nice sweep to it. Cmao20 (talk) 06:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive. Support per Cmao20. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not sure if I'm looking at the same picture as everyone else. This photo seems to be neither colorful nor impressive. Could someone from the "support" camp maybe explain what I'm supposed to be seeing here? —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I really like this image. But IMO there are too much JPEG artifacts. --XRay ^talk 07:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose large panorama of which maybe 20 % of the area is interesting. —kallerna (talk) 08:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think so, for the guardhouse at the left belongs to the fort, there is the entrance. You can see the access leading fom the guardhose to the fort as a hollow-way and it is therefore an essential element of the whole complex, an elementary part of the defence. Therefore I think the whole area is interesting with all his fortifications, and not only the central building. --Llez (talk) 10:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment doesn’t change the fact that majority on the photo consists of something else than the buildings, mostly dry grass and dull midday sky. 11:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
    - Comment I don't think that a Glacis (you call it "something else"), an important part of a fortification, is only "dry grass", and also that 9:17 a.m. (see metadata!) is "dull midday sky". --Llez (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Then 09:17 was too late, dry grass is what I see. —kallerna (talk) 06:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Percival --StellarHalo (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per XRay.--Peulle (talk) 08:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others; we have had a lot of panoramas to choose from and the bar is higher than this can cross. Daniel Case (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Too much JPEG artifacts? No. All in all, this pano gives a complete view of the structure. --Mosbatho (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blaue Federlibelle.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2020 at 21:41:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Platycnemididae (White-legged Damselflies)
Info A very sharp photo of a damselfly by Sven Damerow. I have no idea how he manages to produce so many focus stacks of living creatures at this resolution and with this amount of sharp detail, but it is really very impressive. created by Sven Damerow - uploaded by Sven Damerow - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He gets up early in the morning, when there is little wind and the insects are too cold to move. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there is another FP here of the species which is good too, but this one is higher resolution and sharper - plus this one is a female and the other one is a male, so it adds something new. Cmao20 (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it has some stacking issues, notes added. --Ivar (talk) 06:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, I've added another. Amazing detail, but needs to be reworked. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose current version, too many stacking issues. --Ivar (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Honestly I think Charles and Ivar have a point. Cmao20 (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cmao20 (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amilcare Ponchielli (before 1886) - Archivio Storico Ricordi FOTO000794 - Restoration.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2020 at 18:26:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Men
Info created by Icilio Calzolari - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice portrait and restoration. Do you know what the original size of the card was? Is this a carte de visite? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I think cabinet card. LutiV might be able to say more. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The size of the portait is 255 x 178 cm, it's a little bigger than a carte de visit.--LutiV (talk) 07:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LutiV, it's really so huge? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek I'm sorry, it is 255x178 millimeters, not centimeters. Please forgive my mistake. --LutiV (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! I thought so. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monumento a Johann Strauss, Stadtpark, Viena, Austria, 2020-01-31, DD 102-104 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2020 at 18:53:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Statues_outdoors
Info Blue hour shot of the monument to Johann Strauss, inaugurated in 1921 and located in the Stadtpark, Vienna, Austria. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Red channel appears to be slightly blown. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@King of Hearts: Are you suggesting that I reduce the saturation of the red channel or rather a WB ajustment? Poco a poco (talk) 10:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a simple highlight reduction. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but according to Lr there was no overexposure Poco a poco (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, sometimes it's more about the visual effect. For landscapes I like to push the highlights as far as I can without blowing them out, to really make use of the full dynamic range available, but I've found that for structures being too close to 255 reduces the apparent detail even if nothing is actually blown out. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful light and a very sharp, detailed photo. Cmao20 (talk) 06:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Surroundings are dead and dull, and the most of the photo is of surroundings. Light on the statue is nice. —kallerna (talk) 07:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it, the monument stands out well in these light conditions. The trees are creating quite mysterious atmosphere and work as good balanced elements. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Even if the light is nice, I find the surroundings and the overall atmosphere a bit creepy. --StellarHalo (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@StellarHalo Isn't it a good thing? Good photo should wake some feelings in us and they don't have to always be bubbly and happy. I'd be proud to make a photo with creepy atmosphere :) --Podzemnik (talk) 07:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but dark and gloomy feelings are not something I would associate with a monument of a composer. StellarHalo (talk) 07:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support in agreement with Podzemnik and Cmao20 --GRDN711 (talk) 13:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 07:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful music lights up a dark, bleak world. Daniel Case (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Podzemnik. --Aristeas (talk) 08:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Swamp Sylhet.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2020 at 14:55:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Bangladesh
Info created & uploaded by Abdulmominbd - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A bit tilted, and the blurred background has been inadvertently sharpened leading to noise. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing composition outweighs quality issues. Cmao20 (talk) 06:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question downsized? Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose assuming downsized Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to see some work done on this photo per KoH and Charles. Also, minor point, but it's undercategorized. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, per others and my comments above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support wonderful composition --Augustgeyler (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is very good but the technical quality is not.--Peulle (talk) 08:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vista de Horta desde Monte da Guia, isla de Fayal, Azores, Portugal, 2020-07-27, DD 07-18 HDR PAN.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2020 at 16:58:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Portugal
Info Overview of the city of Horta during the blue hour from Monte da Guia, Faial Island, Azores, Portugal. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 04:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 05:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cmao20 (talk) 10:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exposure and composition are fine. A little noisy at 100%, but the noise pattern blends inoffensively. And even with this, the level of detail at 100% is surprising throughout, revealing hidden points of interest throughout the image. --Bobulous (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 01:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File: Edifício Wilton Paes de Almeida collapse (May 2018) 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2020 at 14:25:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1990-now or Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Other lands vehicles
Info created and uploaded by Sturm - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 14:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 14:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose perhaps appropriately, it's rubbish quality! Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find the technical quality far too low for an FP.--Peulle (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't reach concerns about the technical quality because the composition doesn't do anything for me. Tragic event, of course. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An FP-level view but not FP-level quality. Cmao20 (talk) 10:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 08:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very low level of detail. --Augustgeyler (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iglesia de San Martín, Memmingen, Alemania, 2019-06-21, DD 65-67 HDR.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2020 at 21:21:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Germany
Info St Martin church, Memmingen, Germany. The temple is one of the oldest churches in Upper Swabia, as there are documents of its existence from the 9th century, and one of the landmarks of the city. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI/VI, but I'm not feeling very impressed with the sharpness, and the light is fine but not special to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination You're probably right, I like the ceiling very much but ligthing/sharpness isn't at the highest level we're used to see here, I take it back Poco a poco (talk) 09:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poco a poco (talk) 09:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:SL Bundala NP asv2020-01 img08.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2020 at 12:35:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Meropidae (Bee-eaters)
Info A Blue-tailed Bee-eater (Merops philippinus) in Bundala National Park, Sri Lanka ---- all by A.Savin --A.Savin 12:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 12:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was going to nominate this one. The current nom is sharper, but the background is not so attractive. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull background. —kallerna (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 09:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GRDN711 (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I actually prefer Charles' picture, but there should be room for more than one FP of this species. Cmao20 (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family : Meropidae (Bee-eaters)

File:Wetland - Weiherwald - Karlsruhe 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2020 at 06:19:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 06:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 06:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see why you nominate it but the image results too chaotic to me. --Basotxerri (talk) 06:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's nature! --Llez (talk) 07:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basotxerri. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sure what I am supposed to be seeing here. It looks pretty commonplace for wetlands in similar climates. StellarHalo (talk) 01:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basotxerri and StellarHalo. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Llez (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sea caves Cape Greco 9.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2020 at 14:11:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Cyprus
Info created & uploaded by kallerna - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support this one was already feature, but picture presented here gives a different view and distinctive enough for me to be featured as well. -- Tomer T (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. As good as or better than the other one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agreed, better IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 05:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 06:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 10:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit more conventional than the other one but nice for different reasons. Cmao20 (talk) 10:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Benedito Calixto de Jesus - Retrato do Padre José de Anchieta, Acervo do Museu Paulista da USP.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2020 at 23:50:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/People#Portraits
Info created and uploaded by Sturm - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems unsharp and noisy, but I haven't seen the painting in the flesh. Does it really look like this? Even if it does, it's not impressive enough to me for me to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan Kekek, not one of our best painting reproductions. Cmao20 (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I was thinking the same thing. It's not a bad idea to nominate it, but I think the current bar for painting FPs is higher than this.--Peulle (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. When I looked at it in closeup I thought it hadn't finished loading at first. Daniel Case (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Contrasts of Rio de Janeiro - Rocinha, Ipanema, and Mountains at Sunrise.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2020 at 21:55:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Brazil
Info created and uploaded Donatas Dabravolskas - nominated by -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 21:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 21:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool! —kallerna (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Haze eats into the fine detail and makes it a little soft at full screen, but given the distances involved I think acceptable. Exposure is nicely balanced. The pieces of the scene are not striking on their own, but assembled into this whole I think it does capture the imagination. --Bobulous (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Bobulous. --Aristeas (talk) 08:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. Beautiful, and this one is big enough. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Bobulous. Cmao20 (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Four dogs running at golden hour in the countryside of Don Det Laos.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2020 at 00:04:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Laos
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 05:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 06:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cmao20 (talk) 10:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support dogs add something special --Wilfredor (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bela di Supra (Upper Belica).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2020 at 10:27:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements
Info created by Liridon - uploaded by Liridon - nominated by Liridon -- Liridon (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Liridon (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Sorry, for me it's not sharp enough. --XRay ^talk 11:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too ordinary IMO. --Peulle (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. I'm unconvinced it should be a QI, but for the purposes of FPC, it's not one of the greatest photos on the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Basotxerri (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see what you were trying to do with the composition, but unfortunately the light is not so good. Cmao20 (talk) 06:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle and Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gynaephora selenitica caterpillar - Keila.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2020 at 05:49:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Erebidae_(Erebid_Moths)
Info Focus stacked of 9 images. All by Ivar (talk) 05:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 05:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ivar, this isn't a FP to me, most of the water drops are sharp but the caterpillar 1) isn't sharp and 2) is hardly visible, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 08:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not quite at Sven's dragonfly level yet! A much higher quality of stack, but not the depth of field. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The bar for focus stacks is getting quite high and I'm not sure this one is quite there for the reasons Poco mentions. Nice photo though overall Cmao20 (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Ivar (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maya skull fronp1p1.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2020 at 22:14:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
Info created by Cvmontuy - uploaded by Cvmontuy - nominated by Cvmontuy -- Cvmontuy (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cvmontuy (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to support, but is there any way you can make the photo really sharp? I doubt it and therefore will probably have to oppose, but please try. This is certainly a useful photo even if it doesn't pass FPC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvmontuy (talk • contribs)

File:Brick Lane Jamme Masjid (parallel verticals version).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2020 at 19:22:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#United_Kingdom
Info all by Bobulous -- Bobulous (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bobulous (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those clouds are looking weird... —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This looks a bit weird to me ... maybe it's the perspective correction, making it look squeezed in on the sides.--Peulle (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Peulle: The "perspective correction" tool in darktable was used to transform verticals which were very far from parallel in the original version. I've found that this darktable tool does a good job of maintaining the aspect ratio so long as the "specific" lens mode is used. So even though I didn't have a tilt-shift lens when this photograph was captured, I believe this adjusted image does look like what I'd get if a tilt-shift lens had been used. Bear in mind that this was a 16mm lens, so the corners would be subject to the usual ultra-wide-angle rectilinear stretch. But the feedback is welcome, so if anything else excludes this from FP status, I'd like to hear it. --Bobulous (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a really great effort but unfortunately for me it doesn't reach FP. I think it illustrates the massive challenge of getting great photos of urban motifs where you have limited space from which to take the photo. You probably couldn't stand any further back than you did, which means you got a photo with converging verticals, but the perspective correction has introduced its own problems, making the picture look stretched at the top (the stretched cloud looks quite unnatural) and leading to a distinct loss of sharpness in the upper third of the frame. For me it just looks too obviously and aggressively perspective-corrected. I think the crop on the left is also quite tight, though this isn't the reason for my oppose. Cmao20 (talk) 06:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very well said, that's what I was thinking as well. --Peulle (talk) 09:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmao20: Yeah, I was jamming myself into a doorway on the otherside of the road to fit the minaret into the frame, and even then I had to move about to avoid capturing the doorway in the shot. A 17mm tilt-shift lens would have helped, but would still have resulted in the rectilinear stretching. However, you're right that using software to mimic this has used up a lot of pixels towards the top of the image, making it softer. I'd argue that this isn't noticeable until you're viewing pixel-for-pixel, though. --Bobulous (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is certainly an interesting photo, and I'm glad it's a VI (and a QI). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 22:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Borkum, Hauptstrand -- 2020 -- 2691 (bw).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2020 at 06:39:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 06:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 06:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Black and white was definitely the right choice here. Cmao20 (talk) 11:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Cmao. Now, a hazy horizon would make it perfect (currently the horizon line splits the composition), but nonetheless this is FP for me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 06:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Why B&W? EV is reduced. —kallerna (talk) 06:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it's the better choice. But please compare yourself: File:Borkum, Hauptstrand -- 2020 -- 2691.jpg And why do you think EV (exposure value) may be reduced? --XRay ^talk 07:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there's more information in the photo with colours. Remembering the scope of the project, I always prefer non-edited pictures, artistic filters may be used elsewhere. —kallerna (talk) 08:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-edited isn't easy. I always take photographs in RAW. So you need the development. ;-) (And BTW: What do think is a "non-edited" image? Only taken with automatic features of your camera?) And black-and-white itself isn't artistic. Why should I remember the scope? --XRay ^talk 08:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B&W is definitely a filter, a stylistic device. I think you know what I mean with non-edited images, especially nowadays when the social media influences using of filters etc. in images. —kallerna (talk) 11:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have different perceptions of what goes on in black and white. You think more of modern with social media, my memory hangs on the legendary Ilford Pan F Plus 50 and another way of developing a photograph. But so be it. --XRay ^talk 11:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Simple, very good composition, and I like it much better in black & white. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support B&W is about textures and contrasts and here it work very well. --Basotxerri (talk) 10:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I just don't feel any wow from this. I can appreciate the artistic effort, and if I were judging a competition with that as the criteria, it would certainly rank high. But not at FPC. Daniel Case (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry these beach chairs are a common photo motif and this scene isn't special enough. Background too busy. The B&W treatment would work if there was a texture contrast between the chairs and the smooth sand/sea, but the sand/sea isn't smooth. -- Colin (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --StellarHalo (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fernsicht von der Hasenmatt.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2020 at 11:42:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland#Solothurn
Info Far view from the Hasenmatt to the Swiss Alps in a distance of 150 - 170 km. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wide panorama of exactly what? Grass and hazy valley? —kallerna (talk) 06:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A shot that could have been great, but with those hazy conditions we don't really get to see the view.--Peulle (talk) 08:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me the haziness is the whole point. I really like the silvery/blue colours. Cmao20 (talk) 06:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose With this sort of view, the trick is to compress the perspective with a telephoto lens, not exaggerate the perspective with a ultra-wide-angle-panorama so that the photogenic hills are tiny. Most of the image is grass. -- Colin (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao; I like that the distant mountains look as far off as the description says they are, sort of dreamlike. Daniel Case (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao--Tesla - 💬 21:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I feel like I am standing on there myself, looking out at the beautiful view! —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sphinx moth (Eumorpha anchemolus).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2020 at 09:30:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Sphingidae (Hawk Moths)
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cmao20 (talk) 06:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some of your photos have more definition on each individual hair, but not voting for this would just show how spoiled I am by other lepidoptera pictures. Per w:Eumorpha anchemolus, the wingspan of this moth is only 110-135 mm. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2017 Pociąg do nieba we Wrocławiu.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2020 at 15:57:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info created by Jacek Halicki - uploaded by Jacek Halicki - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing --Llez (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Llez, competent photo of a great motif. Cmao20 (talk) 06:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting structure, but photographically just a QI. Small size and ground is in shadow and cluttered with the buildings. A different angle of view might help make this dynamic. -- Colin (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose more or less per Colin, who helps explain why this doesn't wow me although it's an unusual sight. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --El Grafo (talk) 09:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Port de Sète - Octobre 2020.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2020 at 18:05:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#France
Info created - uploaded - nominated by me. -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, wb off (?). —kallerna (talk) 06:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works for me. Beautiful complementarity of the breakwaters on the left and right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I kind of agree with Kallerna, this is a good quality photo but the composition doesn't appeal to me. Cmao20 (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The complementarity of the breakwaters is nice but it's hard to notice with everything else going on in the bottom. Daniel Case (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Château Frontenac at night, Quebec Ville, Canada.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2020 at 02:55:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Canada
Info I took the recommendations by King of Hearts, Aristeas, Podzemnik and Poco a poco, given in this previous nomination and made this new shoot. Thanks, All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 02:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think HDR has caused some funky colors to show up in the trees in the bottom right. Also, WB is a bit on the blue and green side. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the colors of the trees are due to autumn. --Wilfredor (talk) 03:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

King of Hearts It was difficult to find a landmark, but I used the road asphalt as a landmark due to its neutral color, what do you think? --Wilfredor (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of the leaves look grey, suggesting that there is ghosting from the HDR. I personally never use a sampled WB directly; I might use it as a starting point, but I always adjust it afterwards to make it look right to my eyes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I always try to take reference elements so that the photo is closer to the real colors, I will follow your recommendation to involve more my human factor and the appreciation of what I think the real colors were. On the other hand, with respect to the moved leaves, this is an area where the wind is common and except for specific conditions, the leaves will generally be moved, do you recommend any solution to this problem? One solution I see is to go there when the trees no longer have leaves. --Wilfredor (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some blur in the leaves is fine; it's when you add HDR that it becomes problematic. You should choose only one frame to use, and then mask out all the others. As for which frame to use, it's a balancing act: the brighter the frame, the greater the blur, but the darker the frame, the more noise there is. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean with "mask out all the others" ? --Wilfredor (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some HDR programs allow you to tell it to ignore some of your exposures in some parts of the image that you choose. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Has magic for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: tilted. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 10:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite some flaws, this is a super photo for me. Cmao20 (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like it in general but some areas look too bright to me and therefore the result doesn't look so realistic, not sure how to vote here, to be honest, therefore ~~Neutral~~ Poco a poco (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Poco a poco and King of Hearts: I rebuilt from the raw again to fix the too bright areas. Please, let me know what do you think. Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, thanks,

Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Big improvement, but I think it's significant enough that people who voted to support should also be pinged. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very striking, but there's something unnatural feeling about certain parts that I can't explain. Firstly, the stars look like they've been added in artificially (their positions have moved when compared to your original version), and they have an odd mix of coma and what looks like JPEG artefacts. Secondly, parts of the sky have a blotchy/wavy appearance that doesn't look like anything I've seen in digital photos before. Thirdly, the tones have a feel similar to most recent estate agent photographs, where all areas have the same narrow range of luminance. Would I be right to guess that some sort of "HDR" or "AI" enhancement software has been used? It is a great scene, but this version doesn't feel believable to me. --Bobulous (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bobulous I did not add any saturation or any kind of artificial fading or filters. The colors are actually naturals (you will find the RAW images here: 1, 2 and 3). I use Aurora HDR to assembling the images and Topaz Denoise to noise reduction and IMHO some lighting changes in the sky could be result of light pollution?. Finally I also apply a lens distortion correction (possibly the movement you mention)--Wilfredor (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sunday Creek Bog2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2020 at 00:56:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Ontario
Info: Sunday Creek Bog seen from the Spruce Bog Boardwalk, Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario, Canada. All by -- -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, highlights adjusted too much, dull light. —kallerna (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I quite like it. The mix of autumn colors, reflection of the sky, the curve of the lake and width of frame make for a really pleasant, quiet scene. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Rhododendrites --StellarHalo (talk) 05:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ per kallerna; it looks like the shadows and highlights were pushed too far for the sky. (File:Sunday Creek Bog.jpg looks a bit more believable) --Trougnouf (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral It looks more natural with the new edit. The scene doesn't wow me but I have nothing against it (though if it came down to replacing the other shot with this wider one I would be in favor. I didn't initially realize that it was featured). --Trougnouf (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I noticed that you had to restitch it to perform modifications, that's a lot of work. What I usually do when I have to work with a separate editor is an initial processing in darktable with the same exposure, white balance, denoising, and nothing else, then export with the Linear rec2020 RGB color profile (which is the same as darktable's working profile) as 16-bit tiff (hugin doesn't seem to work well with 32-bit tiff but the difference should be insignificant), that way virtually no information is lost and you can do the stitching in hugin or whatever else, then finally reimport it and do all of the editing in darktable as if you were working on the raw file (minus wb, demosaic, denoising). This way further edits can always be done (and it's less prone to overprocessing by doing multiple passes of the same module). --Trougnouf (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing the workflow tips! It can get very tedious to redo the whole thing indeed. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Super resolution but the colours are very similar to the other FP linked by Trougnouf, and I agree about the sky, the whole effect looks a bit like overdone HDR (I know it's not HDR, but that's how it looks). Cmao20 (talk) 06:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done: reprocessed Kallerna, Trougnouf, Cmao20 --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support due to the technical issues, but otherwise ... this is what autumn in the north looks like more often than not. We don't always need sun and a clear azure sky to make it beautiful. Daniel Case (talk) 02:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wroclaw- Most Zwierzyniecki.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2020 at 22:13:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Poland
Info created by Jar.ciurus - uploaded by Jar.ciurus - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but with the left cut off the nice line created by the tracks just doesn't lead anywhere. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support It leads across the bridge. Strong sense of motion to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice view, but would expect a little bit of the left arch of the bridge. --XRay ^talk 08:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King --StellarHalo (talk) 05:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan Kekek, the leading lines are actually really good. Too much NR for me, but still deserves the star. Cmao20 (talk) 06:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition not working for me. -- Colin (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. A QI yes, but not an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The composition with regard to the bridge works well. The starburst from the lanterns is a little distracting, but doesn't really clash with the curves of the bridge, so I think it's acceptable. The motion blur of the vehicle (bus) in the far distance is not ideal, but very small in the scene. And the advert which says "BAR" is not ideal, but somewhat mitigated by the fact its bleached by specular light. Overall, though, the sweeping curves of the bridge side and top save the scene, and the exposure and colours are just right for drawing attention to them. --Bobulous (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bossee-2020-13-msu-.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2020 at 15:00:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Schleswig-Holstein
Info created & uploaded by Matthias Süßen - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overprocessed like this one in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unrealistic colors and contrasts. Instagram aspect, like this candidature nominated some weeks ago. There's a potential, unfortunately the post-treatment ruined it -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile, sorry. I really appreciate Matthias’ work, but this photo (or the post-processing) is rather a slip. --Aristeas (talk) 09:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose If I were looking for pictures for a wall calendar, this would definitely get the photographer a call back, but here ... Daniel Case (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did not nominate the photo, but thank Tomer T very much for that. I rarely nominate my pictures myself and only if I think they are among the best commons has to offer. This photo was an experiment that worked better or worse on different platforms. Here it is indeed out of place. --Matthias Süßen (talk) 06:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 06:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Humanité René Philastre and Charles-Antoine Cambon - Set design for the second part of Victor Hugo's Les Burgraves, première production.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2020 at 09:58:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Entertainment#Music_and_Opera
Info created by Humanité René Philastre and Charles-Antoine Cambon - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question I see a lot of grid lines. I guess they were put there originally as a guide for the artist and left visible? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These set designs were meant to e turned into physical objects, the artistry is kind of a bonus. So, yes, but I'm not quite sure whether they were an artist guide or a construction guide. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Got it. Thanks for explaining. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 06:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cmao20 (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 08:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Entertainment#Music_and_Opera

File:Petit Champlain at night, Quebec city.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2020 at 19:34:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Canada
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To me this is an improved version of this FP. A delist and replace seems more appropriate than an all-new nomination IMO. Cmao20 (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On balance, I think I agree. Very similar composition, same motif, but this is a larger file, brighter and has IMO a nicer composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment +1. I agree with Cmao20 too -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO It is a different composition, the previous one has more of an upper part than this, there are also people and another different decoration of lights --Wilfredor (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although the new image is of higher quality, I prefer the composition of the old one. I just don't think a square crop works as well as a vertical aspect ratio. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per resolution of whether we should delist the old one or not. Daniel Case (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral exactly like Daniel. I like both photos very much, but I fear we cannot feature both of them. --Aristeas (talk) 09:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the feedback, I will create a delist nomination --Wilfredor (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Main path lined with stone pillars to the ruined Khmer Hindu temple of Wat Phou, Champasak, Laos.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2020 at 05:11:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Laos
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe the light is a bit harsh, but I like the composition very much – it combines the centered axis with a careful balance of the juxtaposed trees and the rising mountains. --Aristeas (talk) 09:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but not special enough for FP. —kallerna (talk) 11:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MB-one (talk) 12:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas, the composition is painterly. Cmao20 (talk) 07:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's tilted, but that's easily fixable. I'm 50/50 on the wow factor; the pillars and ruins give it a certain something, but in the end I feel like there's not enough of them to see. It's a nature photo more than a shot of some interesting ruins.--Peulle (talk) 09:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Image rotated (1°). Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Peulle, I'd have probably tried to focus rather on the road showing less of the mounatins in the back, to me it doesn't look balanced Poco a poco (talk) 07:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC) Poco a poco (talk) 07:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Poco. I'd probably support a photo that narrowly focused on just the central section from bottom to top - the path. The taller peak on the right unfortunately unbalances the form to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:FCCA GE C30-7 Chinchan - Ticlio.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2020 at 13:49:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info created & uploaded by David Gubler - nominated by Ivar (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Typically good from Kabelleger. Cmao20 (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 06:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile, and also a nice colour/saturation contrast. --Aristeas (talk) 08:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I love this scene, and it's almost perfect except for the bizarre texture seen in the water closest to the front of the train. Is that some sort of noise reduction artefact? Can it be fixed? (Also, is the train driver giving you a thumbs up?) --Bobulous (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Must be some moiré effect, interference between the water's structure and the sensor pixels. I've uploaded a new version in which I didn't sharpen the water, I think it's much better that way. As usual SHIFT+reload may be necessary to see the changes. --Kabelleger (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support The latest version is softer at 100%, but it does hide the odd prickliness of the water at full screen, so I think it's worth the trade. --Bobulous (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 09:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Galerie de la Reine, Brussels (DSCF7218).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2020 at 17:35:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Belgium
Info by -- Trougnouf (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Trougnouf (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is OK, good timing. But way too much of the floor, instead I'd wish to see more of the arches (like on this photo). IMO it would have been nothing wrong about heading the camera slightly upwards and then doing perspective correction. Light is a bit weak, too. --A.Savin 18:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works great for me, I like having the vanishing point near the center. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like it, but tend to agree with A.Savin about too much floor. I'd be inclined to support with a crop, but some might not like that for resolution reasons. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much floor. —kallerna (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin --StellarHalo (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Kallerna. Nice picture but it does look slightly unbalanced, the trouble is there is nothing much to look at in the floor. I think landscape not portrait would have been a better choice here. Cmao20 (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I think that cropping away the floor up to at least above the cracked tile would stop the empty space drawing attention away from the more interesting shopfronts and covered ceiling. Also, I hate to say it, but the red-and-white safety barrier/tape in the mid-distance is a little distracting once you spot it. --Bobulous (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King. I think cropping the floor out would only have been justified if, like this onetime FP nom of mine, the camera had been able to take in the end point of the glass roof. Also, I think (per the way some !voters said they'd support that image if there hadn't been all those people at the bottom), it emphasizes the emptiness of a usually crowded public space due to the pandemic. Daniel Case (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Walkway and hut in paddy fields with water reflection of colorful clouds at sunset in Vang Vieng Laos.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2020 at 21:41:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Laos
Info Another Laotian landscape from Basile Morin. As with so many of these I think it has really special and unusual light. created by Basile Morin - uploaded by Basile Morin - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find this one among the best of Basile's landscapes. The sky is nice, but the foreground is too much about the mud puddles on the left. There's nothing wrong with that, necessarily, except that I feel like I'm supposed to be looking at the structure in the background and the field to the right (where the light is less appealing). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impossible not to support these beautiful lines. --Podzemnik (talk) 06:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely, per Podzemnik. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but not exceptional enough for FP. —kallerna (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks a lot, Cmao20, for the nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 07:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. --Aristeas (talk) 08:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the contrast between the sublimity of the background and the prosaic mud in the foreground reflecting it, mud that someone has to walk around so that they and their family can eat. Daniel Case (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And feed others, very often, too :-) I tried to target the orange clouds through the reflection. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --GRDN711 (talk) 01:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose solid image but unfortunate light IMO. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Milseburg (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above Poco a poco (talk) 07:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Georgios Ntaviotis & Daniel Souček, U21 CZE-GRE 2019-10-10.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2020 at 19:00:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Association football (soccer)
Info all by me. -- T.Bednarz (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- T.Bednarz (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The scene doesn't speak for itself (why does the guy in the white shirt appear to be shouting at his hand, and why is the other guy not interested in the ball?). Also, the motion blur, on the hand and the ball, detracts from the image rather than adding to it. --Bobulous (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry, but once you read Bobulous's !vote you can't take the picture seriously (In any event, regardless of the outcome of this, I think the image would benefit greatly from being cropped in from the left as that part of it adds nothing). Daniel Case (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was going to suggest you nominate this image instead, but realised rather late that it has already been awarded FP status. That is a striking image. --Bobulous (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sugarloaf Mountain with the cloud on top.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2020 at 21:53:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Brazil
Info created and uploaded Donatas Dabravolskas - nominated by -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 21:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 21:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The quality is not perfect but this is a really amazing sight. Cmao20 (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice, but wb seems to slightly off. —kallerna (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very striking scene, especially with the lines of cables partially disappearing within the cloud. The peak does appear starkly darker and more saturated than the rest of the rock, but I'm guessing this might be because it's above cloud level and less affected by moisture haze. The composition is good, the exposure fitting, and the warm colour seems right to me given how low the sun must be to cast shadows like that. --Bobulous (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not impressed by composition or quality. Should not be any need to crop (or it may be downsized). Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not sure about the WB, especially given this picture taken by the same photographer at the same time. Daniel Case (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Duplicate picture (see metadata of both, e.g. unique ID). The other version was uploaded 5 Sep 2019 as part of WLM, the now nominated version -- on 16 Jul 2020 as part of WLE. Interesting strategy... --A.Savin 12:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A.Savin: Good point, but in the case this image had made it to the final of WLE 2020 in Brazil it would have been disqualified as we expect images that had not been uploaded before (that includes of course derivative works!). FYI Donatas Dabravolskas. Otherwise I agree with Charles and I find the original WB more realistic, therefore Oppose Poco a poco (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Podzemnik (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles --StellarHalo (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Port de Rives in Thonon-les-Bains 06.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2020 at 20:33:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Transport#Others
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow.--Peulle (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice light, but the right crop feels random and I feel like there needs to be more room above the masts. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support What's „no wow“? I see a atmospheric, beautiful and technical good image -- Spurzem (talk) 12:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In case clarification is necessary for other reviewers, I see this kind of view all the time. This is nothing special to me. I don't find the composition especially impressive either - it looks like a shot any tourist in my home town could take. I don't have any issues with the technical quality.--Peulle (talk) 08:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Spurzem, great photo to me. Nice light and beautiful subject Cmao20 (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice subject and light but the foreground is not very interesting to look at. There is a big red box on the left, a bit of another box on the right... I'm somehow missing the composition idea. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle; it doesn't stand out from other views of sailboats docked at a marina. Daniel Case (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Puelle --StellarHalo (talk) 09:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 11:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Steuerhaus, Memmingen, Alemania, 2019-06-21, DD 90.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2020 at 21:10:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
Info Steuerhaus, Memmingen, Germany. The building dates from 1494/1495 and was created for the administration of the finances of the city. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have the feeling that some people at the left are distorted (stretched horizontally), caused by the wide angle objective, also the arch at the right. --Llez (talk) 06:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Llez I applied an aspect ratio adjustment, looks better now, thanks, Poco a poco (talk) 08:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, and the forward-and-back motion is helped by the wicker chairs. Side point: It's funny that there are no flags in the flagpoles. In the U.S., there would be, but I understand the different historical consciousness of Germany. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In this case it's more a question of really, really difficult federal and state regulations as well as local ordinances, Ikan Kekek --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Complicated! Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 11:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan, a really nice colourful photo. Cmao20 (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. It's also faintly nostalgic to see people sitting in groups at tables right next to other people in groups sitting at tables ... Daniel Case (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I've looked at this a few times now, and I don't understand what's so special about it that it should warrant FP status.--Peulle (talk) 10:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Peulle. —kallerna (talk) 11:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. --MB-one (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle and right crop doesn't work for me. --Ivar (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boring sky, and not special enough, per others. Incidentally, visible distorsions among the people -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. -- Karelj (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poco a poco (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poco a poco (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plagiodontes daedaleus f. minor 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2020 at 07:06:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Shells#Family : Odontostomidae
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 07:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not really colorful like many of the shells you've photographed, but very nice details and very impressive, considering its size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not so colourful, but have a look at the teeth! --Llez (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, I did. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, boring colours, but amazing internal detail. What is the purpose of the 'teeth'? Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I suppose that it is an protection against predators, when the animal is retracted in the shell. In contrary to many sea and freshwater snails, most of he land snails lack an operculum, which has amongst others the same function. At any rate these teeth are very useful for taxonomists, for their arrangement (different in every species) helps to identify the species ;-). --Llez (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cmao20 (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 07:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tropidolaemus wagleri, Wagler's palm pit viper - Takua Pa District, Phang-nga Province (48238132136).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2020 at 08:55:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family_:_Viperidae_(Vipers)
Info created by Rushen - uploaded - nominated by me. -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 08:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 09:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support No catchlight? Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cute snek --StellarHalo (talk) 04:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pointe de Nyon (1).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2020 at 20:36:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France#Haute-Savoie
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hazy and dull light -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It looks like there is no contrast - no highlights, no blacks. All just grey. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this kind of light works well with the landscape. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I think the light is a bit flat. Nice photo and good QI but a bit grey and dull for FP Cmao20 (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WB too cool. Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chute Montmorency3.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2020 at 00:45:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Québec
Info: a rainbow below the Montmorency Falls, Quebec, Canada. Second nomination; redeveloped from RAW. All by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm kind of shocked that a search for FPs of this waterfall produces no results. I think this is good enough to be our first. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose weak rainbow, really easy to get a better one at a waterfall. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This one certainly looks better than the version unsucessfully nominated 5 months ago but it is still not good enough for FP. --StellarHalo (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the image overall, but the pixel-level detail is just barely short of what I consider acceptable for a 20 MP landscape. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 07:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Green karst peaks seen from the top of Mount Nam Xay a sunny morning during the monsoon Vang Vieng Laos.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2020 at 23:56:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Laos
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Special clouds, morning mist and gentle light -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- unsharp Seven Pandas (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Info Crispy sharp picture shot with a tripod, F/8, ISO 50, professional lens and camera. This one was sharp too -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have another look, Basile, it does not look crispy sharp to me. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles J Sharp, sharp like your honeycomb I think. If not "crispy" then normally sharp. But look, you have two nominations currently, this honeycomb measuring 3,415 × 3,415 pixels, and a moth sized 4,422 × 2,948 pixels. Your buzzard archived yesterday measured 2,600 x 4,000 pixels, and your chameleon last week 3,785 × 2,523 pixels. Now this is how detailed this landscape appears when downsized or cropped to 4'422 px large, like the biggest of your 4 last candidatures. The autofocus was set, certainly the limit of the camera was reached. More sharpness would mean over-sharpened in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was reacting to your dismissing the oppose vote with the 'crispy' adjective. I wouldn't dream of comparing the absolute sharpness of my hand-held photos using a enthusiast-level crop-frame body and a hand-held 400mm lens in average light conditions with your professional-level full-frame body and tripod with the option of testing out various settings. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Best setting I reached -- Basile Morin (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 10:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful landscape and the sharpness looks fine to me. Cmao20 (talk) 06:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Majestic. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice scenery, sharpness clearly OK. --A.Savin 13:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition and exposure, and a nice sense of depth delivered by the low angle of the sun. Detail is sharp at full screen (34" 4K) and sufficient at 100%. The clouds and the colours and the rugged terrain make for a striking scene. --Bobulous (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support due to sharpness Poco a poco (talk) 07:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PK Thatta asv2020-02 img03 Shah Jahan Mosque.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2020 at 01:54:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings/Ceilings#Pakistan
Info Interior of one of two domes of the en:Shah Jahan Mosque, Thatta (Sindh/Pakistan) ---- all by A.Savin --A.Savin 01:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 01:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good photo of a great beautiful dome. --Aristeas (talk) 09:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas Cmao20 (talk) 07:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 09:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 12:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 07:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Knoblauch (Allium sativum)-20200621-RM-085344.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2020 at 11:26:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family : Amaryllidaceae
Info created & uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Was skeptical seeing the preview, but the detail in full res is just stunning. --MB-one (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, and a pleasant shape. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, preview nothing special, but great detail when full size. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Extraordinary sharpness. Cmao20 (talk) 07:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 07:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support It looks like it wants to be a logo for something. Daniel Case (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's the start of a knot-tying demo. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Petite Venise depuis le pont de la rue de Turenne (Colmar) (2).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2020 at 12:12:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info Little Venice from the rue de Turenne bridge in Colmar (Haut-Rhin, France). Gzen92 ^[discuter] 12:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gzen92 ^[discuter] 12:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad light: the houses are in the shadow and the sky is too bright. —kallerna (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand, I adjusted light tones and dark tones. Is it better ? Thanks. Gzen92 ^[discuter] 07:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty and good quality but the light is still dull. I assume you were shooting in the direction of the sun, which never quite works. Cmao20 (talk) 11:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kallerna and Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Difficult to manage the light... The original photo (with no adjustments) is better? Gzen92 ^[discuter] 08:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Arcades, Christchurch, New Zealand 04.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2020 at 12:47:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Sculptures outdoors
Info created & uploaded by User:Podzemnik - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 14:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 04:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice find. Thanks for the nomination Ikan. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're welcome. I enjoy the shape and the light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 12:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cmao20 (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and simple. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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