Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/September 2017

File:CHIMBORAZO-RIOBAMBA-DAVID-TORRES-COSTALES.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2017 at 20:13:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Chimborazo seen from Riobamba - Ecuador, its summit is the farthest point on the Earth's surface from the Earth's center.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Chimborazo seen from Riobamba - Ecuador, its summit is the farthest point on the Earth's surface from the Earth's center. created by Dabit100 - uploaded by Dabit100 - nominated by User:Dabit100 -- Dabit100 (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dabit100 (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Too grainy/noisy for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Grainy, but pretty. I'd like to see a version with mild noise reduction. -- Thennicke (talk) 06:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition and composition. But IMO too much noise. BTW: The capital letters of the filename are disturbing. --XRay ^talk 18:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like very much the composition: the volcano in the center of the picture, dominating Riobamba; the aspect of the clouds. I hope you could try again. --Harlock81 (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many dark areas. Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maria Saal Dom Innenraum 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2017 at 20:37:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Austria
Info created & uploaded by User:Uoaei1 - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is one of two tremendous panoramas of church interiors by Uoaei1 that I'm posting here for your viewing pleasure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice PumpkinSky talk 23:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 06:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 16:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support the altar is a tad too bright imo - but that's just a detail --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alexander Leisser (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bob Collowan (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as author. Thanks for the nomination! I have changed the category to interiors of religious buildings in Austria, which I would normally use for this kind of image. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--fedaro (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pernegg Kirche Innenraum 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2017 at 20:40:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Austria
Info created & uploaded by User:Uoaei1 - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The second of the great church interior panoramas by Uoaei1 that I'm nominating today. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice PumpkinSky talk 23:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Perfect beauty.--Ermell (talk) 06:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 16:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alexander Leisser (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect with its spider's web on the left, its christmas trees in the apse, and the feel of a just ended religious function. --Harlock81 (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as author. Thanks for the nomination! I have changed the category to interiors of religious buildings in Austria, which I would normally use for this kind of image. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I'm happy for you to improve the category of both photos. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Adams-Wabash, Chicago (Unsplash).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2017 at 22:41:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Pedro Lastra, uploaded by Fæ, nominated by Yann (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that there is an existing FP of this view from eight years ago. Of course there's no reason why we can't have two FPs of the same view; I haven't decided how I'll vote yet, but I'm just including it to help other voters. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Good, except that the sky is quite visibly posterized, which gives me a lot of pause. The posterization above the Trump Tower is quite noticeable at a size that's merely sufficient to fit in full on one page of my laptop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Local contrast seems overdone, and as per Ikan, posterisation -- Thennicke (talk) 04:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 06:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do like this shot, Q not there, but original Urban. --Mile (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this kind of pic....(also if is write Trump!)--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite the sky, the overall composition is still quite nice. WClarke 04:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my comments above. I don't see how this can be one of the very best photos on the site with this degree of posterization. Don't we need to uphold standards? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Yann (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 07:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

===File:Porto Covo August 2017-4.jpg, not featured===

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2017 at 19:57:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Aerial view of Porto Covo, taken with a drone (DJI Mavic Pro) at the end of the day. The drone was at an altitude of about 400 m. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like it as a thumbnail so it could definitely be a VI, but the technical quality is too low for an FP, methinks.--Peulle (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe some posterized parts, but mitigating circumstances. Very good light.--Jebulon (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support For a drone shot this is not bad. Nicely-composed image of a pretty town. -- Thennicke (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle; the houses in particular are wanting. Daniel Case (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle.The posterization is apparent even at 50% of full size. Sorry. --Nikhil B (talk) 02:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 07:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pyrus pyrifolia fruit on tree PS 2z LR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2017 at 22:50:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Rosaceae>
All by me. Pyrus pyrifolia, Asian Pear, Raja cultivar, fruits on tree. A complete rework of my first attempt of getting this through FPC. PumpkinSky talk 22:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 22:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great image as before. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 04:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Not a totally perfect stacking merge, but given how tasty and 3D the fruits look and given the size of the file I'll support it. --cart-Talk 09:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 16:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Still a great image. Andy Mabbett (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 07:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bonn, Post-Tower -- 2017 -- 2128 (bw).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2017 at 09:02:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 09:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info The image is a black-and-white photograph to improve the structures. --XRay ^talk 09:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 09:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good and works very well in B&W. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very dynamic capture of the building. Can't help thinking about the Star Trek emblem though. :) --cart-Talk 16:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Impressive! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A great B&W shot! Sixflashphoto (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support wirklich toll --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Part of the sky looks overexposed.--Jebulon (talk) 08:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you think the area with the sun (behind the building)? IMO these are limits of the camera, but I tried to improve this area. IMO it's better now. Thanks for your review. --XRay ^talk 08:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support PumpkinSky talk 14:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Livio. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning. Daniel Case (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Damn. Beautifully done. Zhangj1079 (T|C|U) 00:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 14:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pakri tuletornid.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2017 at 15:22:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
Info Old and new Pakri lighthouse. All by Ivar (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, this composition looks very pedestrian to me. Maybe a useful VI, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~I withdraw my nomination~~ --Ivar (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know you've withdrawn your nomination, but I like this image. The lighting is particularly nice, and I respectfully disagree with Ikan about the composition. In particular, I like the cloud's shape and position. -- Thennicke (talk) 12:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment All right, I'll let it flow a bit more. --Ivar (talk) 12:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ezarateesteban 22:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I have to agree with Ikan. The framing/crop leaves something to be desired too. --cart-Talk 08:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the photo but agree the crop isn't the best. It'd have been better to give more border to the right of the house and less on the left side of the photo. PumpkinSky talk 14:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Neptuul (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the image and the scenery. There are two details, one is disturbing, but acceptable. The disturbing one is the waste on the plant on the right. And the other is the watching man. Good. --XRay ^talk 08:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition could be a little better but the great light more than makes up for it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King. Has a certain starkness to it. Daniel Case (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 16:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Thunder cloud over Gåseberg.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2017 at 11:53:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Clouds
Info While folks in North America were enjoying the solar eclipse, I had a thunder storm approaching. It looked pretty awesome too just before the rain set in. (You can see the curtain of rain in the lower left corner.) I got another shot a bit to the right of this scene, but I think this one is more beautiful. All by me, -- cart-Talk 11:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 11:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Funny, I just uploaded this !--Jebulon (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Great minds think alike" --cart-Talk 16:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jebulon, I think that photo is a good FP candidate. From my viewpoint, it's a better composition than this photo, which feels to me more nearly just about the clouds and phenomenon. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support yep, clouds can be fascinating --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Quality is not great, but atmosphere makes up for it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per King of Hearts.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per King of Hearts.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 16:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Amadeus (ship, 1910), Sète cf01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2017 at 17:28:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support :-) But please fix the position of the location template. --XRay ^talk 17:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@XRay: I don't understand, what do you mean? Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my misunderstandig. I thought 'location' should be placed under 'information', but above is possible too. --XRay ^talk 18:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support On the one hand the building on the right disturbes the harmony, on the other hand it gives a good contrast, including by shape and colour. And this image is really crispy sharp! Good job done. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't love that the bowsprit is caught in the building and maybe it's a teeny weeny tad overprocessed, but since the photo makes me wish I was there taking an evening stroll along the quay, it works. The light is magical. --cart-Talk 18:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Cart and Baso. PumpkinSky talk 19:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice atmosphere. I think verticals might be leaning slightly outwards, but within the margin of error. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support for a full resolution picture, this is quite sharp.--Nikhil B (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Not easy to get the ships sharp with that exposure time. Well done.--Ermell (talk) 07:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Doesn't wow me, exactly, but it's a really good composition, in part because of reasons mentioned above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 23:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Filialkirche St Peter am Bichl Kirchenportal Detail 03102015 1582.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2017 at 16:10:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Doors
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exactly the kind of idea I like very much, even if lions don't eat corn. Nice contrast, nice colors, sharpness not tiptop, and maybe lack of space above the lion's head, but anyway excellent !--Jebulon (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 16:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good.--Ermell (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent light. --cart-Talk 17:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support funny and well executed --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Crop at top could be better but I love the color and theme contrasts. PumpkinSky talk 20:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. Why did someone put the corn on the door, though? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment During the days of Thanksgiving they adorn parts of the churches with crop plants, especially in rural areas. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support very good light conditions. --Ivar (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Crop at top could be better. --Famberhorst (talk) 04:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to your wish I added some more space at the top. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support After your correction at the top much better now for me.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like a cool painting ... Daniel Case (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 23:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Black-headed lapwing (Vanellus tectus tectus).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2017 at 21:15:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice PumpkinSky talk 22:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Liking this. :) --Peulle (talk) 07:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spurzem (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 11:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fabrication Briques Madagascar.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2017 at 06:40:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by NY onja Christian - uploaded by NY onja Christian - nominated by NY onja Christian -- NY onja Christian (talk) 06:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- NY onja Christian (talk) 06:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Really not bad, better than I expected for a mobile phone shot. The scene also has a certain something that might be seen as a "wow" factor, but before we go on to judging quality, the categories must be fixed ( Done).--Peulle (talk) 08:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Neptuul (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ I keep coming back to this image. There's just something about it - a certain je ne sais quoi.--Peulle (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment yeah that's right, Peulle . This is not the type of stuff you used to see on commons. I've taken this image myself, then I took 5 minutes to talk with these guys, that was an awesome adventure.NY onja Christian (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is interesting enough and not something we see here every day. --cart-Talk 17:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This new version I feel has too many technical flaws to be overlooked by the "wow" factor. I thought the image was already uploaded as shot.--Peulle (talk) 07:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 18:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wasn't understanding all the support !votes until I looked at it in the full original version. It may not be aesthetically striking, but it tells a story of hard, perhaps backbreaking, work under an unrelenting sun. I had a similar experience once doing landscaping, so even from my First-World perch I can relate. Daniel Case (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is how all the bricks in whole Madagascar territory is made. NY onja Christian (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 11:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2014.06.21.-12-Mannheim Rheinau--Schwarzspitziger Halsbock.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2017 at 15:21:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Flower's not perfect, but the insect is, and that's what counts. Daniel Case (talk) 01:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well done. Zhangj1079 (T|C|U) 00:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 15:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kaliningrad 05-2017 img29 Wrangel Tower.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2017 at 13:27:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Russia
Info All by A.Savin --A.Savin 13:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 13:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 00:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question What is the blue colour object in the tree on the left side?--Ermell (talk) 07:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. Should I remove it? --A.Savin 10:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like some weird CA, please get rid of it since it's visible even at thumb. --cart-Talk 12:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --A.Savin 12:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bob Collowan (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another building picture enhanced by its reflection. Daniel Case (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 15:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Old man with a beard, Batumi, Georgia (Unsplash q65bNe9fW-w).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2017 at 23:15:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Mari Lezhava, uploaded by Fæ, nominated by Yann (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brilliant work. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose potentially brilliant - if it weren't that overprocessed. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a very nice piece, but I won't vote for it until it has been properly categorized.--Peulle (talk) 07:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, done. Yann (talk) 10:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Martin. --cart-Talk 09:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Martin Falbisoner and W.carter: What's overprocessed? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMO there is way too much contrast and clarity. The photo has almost only black and white with very few grey tones in between. I know it's a style, but in this case it comes off a bit too harsh. --cart-Talk 11:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: I don't think this is really true. There is a large black area, so the linear histogram is not very developed. But if you look at the logarithmic histogram, you can see a lot of grey. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of us is capable of creating an artistic photo like Yann did. Chapeau! I bow down. For me this image is a splendid example how photography should be executed, artistically and technically superb. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per others, and the white frame is a no go for me.@Johann Jaritz: Yann, excellent photographer indeed, did not take this one...--Jebulon (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From your tongue I accept the highly appreciated review, because you are one of the very best photographers in this community. @Jebulon: Your voice is like a verdict, that has weight. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed the white frame. Yann (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Martin. Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Yann (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lago Mavrovo, Macedonia, 2014-04-17, DD 30.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2017 at 09:43:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I find this beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spurzem (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for the nom Kiril! Poc o² 21:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose great landscape but dull weather :-/ --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose crop, lake is out. --Mile (talk) 07:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposers. --Ivar (talk) 10:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too ordinary a winter scene. Daniel Case (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Debarsko jezero (Дебарско езеро).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2017 at 07:31:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info The previous nomination was withdrawn by the author of the image himself shortly after it was nominated. I think the composition is good enoough and it deserves another try. Created by Pudelek - uploaded by Pudelek - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Small but beautiful and pleasant. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but IMO this is far too hazy and I think the tree in the centre is somewhat disturbing. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's summer, of course it will be hazy. -- Thennicke (talk) 03:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is haze in summer but that doesn't produce necessarily an FP... --Basotxerri (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Basotxerri. Dull light.--Jebulon (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The haze could be reduced a bit (the in RawTherapee possibly usable function for this is called "retinex" for example) so that it wouldn't be the big problem no more in my eyes. But I'm afraid the mentioned very disturbing tree is the death blow for the FP status of it. It is annoying but not to change. --Hockei (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basotxerri. --Karelj (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basotxerri and Hockei. Daniel Case (talk) 02:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Diamonds Thudufushi Beach and Water Villas, May 2017 -01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2017 at 17:54:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places#Maldives
Info Image of the color blue. And minimalism. And Thudufushi. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A lovely symphony in blue, but is there any chance of bringing out the clouds a bit more? --cart-Talk 18:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Basotxerri, cart-Talk, I've adjusted the contrast a bit. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It matches the crisp water better. Support --cart-Talk 21:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I'm not getting any "wow" vibe ... there's a lot of sky and water and not much else; the island and structures sort of disappear in it.--Peulle (talk) 07:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment... that's the point --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I agree; considering the whole nation is likely to be an early casualty of sea-level rise, that is precisely the point! -- Alandmanson (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nikhil B (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Puelle. I get the point that the islands may soon sink below sea level. But that fact alone does not make the picture exciting. Daniel Case (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. If there were a bunch of puffy clouds distributed across the sky that contributed more to the composition, I'd feel differently. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle and Daniel Case. Zhangj1079 (T|C|U) 00:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Puelle. --Karelj (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination the nays have it --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Locatie, Lendevallei. Trektocht door de vallei. (Spoor en spoorbrug) 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2017 at 04:44:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects #Railway bridge.
Info Straight steel lines of a robust railway bridge. All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Someone will probably object to the crop on the left side, but I don't care, because you have somehow gotten across to me a feeling of motion through your composition, even though nothing is actually moving in the photo. So from my point of view, the photo and its composition are successful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)* Support Strong composition with a great deal of forward motion. Nothing wrong with the crop on the left side, it starts where the "motion" starts. --cart-Talk 07:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 05:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 06:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The left crop does bother me -- Thennicke (talk) 08:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Thennicke. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spurzem (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I just don't see this as an FP. A QI, yes indeed, but just tracks like this doesn't make it for me, not at least without the presence of a train. Daniel Case (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel Case. Zhangj1079 (T|C|U) 13:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good picture, but not special enough for FP. Sorry. Yann (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel Case. --Karelj (talk) 09:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orthetrum August 2017-1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2017 at 12:11:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
Info Female Keeled skimmer waiting for prey. Porto Covo, Portugal. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive.--Peulle (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Peulle: Looking at the file history, it looks like you are responsible for the vote above. Could you please sign it. --cart-Talk 09:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can't fault the dragonfly, but the background is unappealing. Charles (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sputniktilt (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colors and composition. I like the contrast with the background. --Yann (talk) 07:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 08:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Constitution of the United States, page 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2017 at 06:32:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1700-1800
Info created by the National Archives and Records Administration - nominated by User:Peulle. I thought it'd be interesting to get some historical documents nominated for FP. -- Peulle (talk) 06:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Peulle (talk) 06:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Obvious educational/encyclopedic value and cool to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great document. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cleary qualifies under our historical and illustrative clauses. PumpkinSky talk 10:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes, but: wouldn't a set nomination of all four pages even be more appropriate here? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe. I didn't think of that.--Peulle (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Bob Collowan (talk) 12:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very very good --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support As French, I think this should be worldwide moving, imo. "We, the People...". (I was sure we already had it as FP !). I agree with Peulle, we should have more good quality historical documents as FP !!--Jebulon (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support WClarke 04:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support As a translator, I will also be looking forward to a good photo of the Rosetta Stone. :) --cart-Talk 07:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 15:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical#1700-1800

File:Mallnitz Stappitz Ankogel-Panorama 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2017 at 10:08:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria
Info Ankogel (3,252 metres (10,669 ft)) in the High Tauern National Park from Stappitz in the Seebach Valley near Mallnitz, Carinthia, Austria. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support !!! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bob Collowan (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support WoW! --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lovely composition and superb detail. Charles (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 15:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This photo is really best at full size, so you can see the lovely contrast in color between the evergreens that are closer and more distant. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great quality, and though you can't get the lighting to be perfect on everything every time (e.g. the backlit sheds on the right), overall the image is very nice. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wish something could have been done about that bluish haze in front of the highest summit (it looks like someone soaped the lens) but it comes with the territory, and oh! That detail! Daniel Case (talk) 23:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 15:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jesse Richman - Pierre Bouras 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2017 at 18:15:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created by Pierre Bouras, uploaded by FacultiesIntact, nominated by Yann (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting, probably also the category Natural phenomena can be good --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the composition - despite a bit of noise this is a solid capture in difficult conditions.--Peulle (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Big wow factor; the kite looks almost unreal, in a good way for the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMHO the description and categories are lacking. "name - name" doesn't tell you which one is the subject (though you can figure it out by looking at the author line) or the activity or location and the categories should tell you where this was. PumpkinSky talk 20:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed Yann (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - You did fix the names, but do you know where this was? Perhaps Hawaii since he was born there. PumpkinSky talk 23:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to 'this article' the photo was taken "...off Maui known as Jaws in February 2016." Since the photo has been published online in several articles, I guess we can come up with more info by doing some picture searching with Google. Btw, "Jaws" is the same as Peahi, Hawaii. --cart-Talk 23:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Support now that that's all figured out. Excellent photo. PumpkinSky talk 01:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive. Charles (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would have liked some more white and detail in the surf's spray, but hey.... --cart-Talk 08:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 19:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 05:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Peulle. Looks like the opening credits of Hawaii Five-O (both versions). Daniel Case (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 08:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 23:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:Hylotelephium spectabile FS4g LR.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2017 at 23:31:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order_:_Saxifragales
All by me. PumpkinSky talk 23:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 23:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wonderful colour and remarkably sharp. Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice colour,good focus NY onja Christian (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are uneven out of focus (stacked) areas among the flowers. --Laitche (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Laitche --Llez (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I intstantly noticed three things about this photo: 1) it's very sharp, 2) it's very colorful, and 3) you can see the teeny tiny tips of the flowers at the top rear even at thumbnail size. This photo has lots of small parts to bring together and I think the photographer did an excellent job. HalfGig talk 23:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Unclean post processing makes this blossom look unreal. The sharpness cannot change several times from foreground to background.--Ermell (talk) 07:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, per others. Some parts of the main subjekt are blurred. --Milseburg (talk) 07:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose stacking problems, some isnt stacked correct and somewhere is out of focus. I saw made of 7, i think at this you need at least some 20 shots. --Mile (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdraw my nomination No need to prolong pointlessness. PumpkinSky talk 10:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 07:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Agios Minas bay Chalkida boats storm Greece.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2017 at 17:07:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Stormy weather over Aghios Minas bay, Chalkida, Greece.-- Jebulon (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As I mentioned, I like this photo and consider it featurable. I hadn't previously noticed what might be a dust spot; I've left a note on the file's page (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Agios_Minas_bay_Chalkida_boats_storm_Greece.jpg). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Funny: your note you left is not at the good place ! Anyway, I've found it. Thank you Ikan Kekek, I'll correct asap (actually, it is a drop of rain)--Jebulon (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A normal turist pic.....nothing of interesting for me. (No wow) --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Does anyone agree with this preposterous nonsense? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan, that is an inappropriate question/comment. People should be allowed to vote as they please without having your implied judgment hanging over them. --cart-Talk 21:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You really think it's my comment that's the inappropriate thing? Very well, I'll keep my views on these kinds of strange votes and comments to myself from now on, but everyone knows what's going on. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Without offending anyone here but no wow and this a quite usual scene are very common reasons for opposing at FPC. At least on my nominations --Basotxerri (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I may have picked the wrong photo to react this way, but really, whether you think this is featurable or not, a "normal tourist pic"? Nevermind, no further comment, as I said above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Disregarding the above comments which seem to stem from some kind of prior disagreement, I too feel that there's a distinct lack of "wow" in this image. The light is a bit boring.--Peulle (talk) 07:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well I don't know what's going on, and don't normally vote on this type of everyday image, but it does nothing for me. The composition is uninspiring. Charles (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- In Oxfordshire for sure, but believe me Charles, this in not, in Greece, an "everyday image". Actually this kind of weather is rare.--Jebulon (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed. While sailing round the Cyclades I've been attacked by the meltemi - can't remember what the clouds looked like, we were too busy putting reefs in! Charles (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info @Ikan Kekek: and others interested: Dust spot removed.--Jebulon (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdraw my nomination. Ok, dears. No many chances of success now... thanks everyone for opinions.--Jebulon (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 07:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Canal of Sète at dusk cf01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2017 at 05:30:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 05:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 05:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charming and beautiful. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Stunningly beautiful. PumpkinSky talk 13:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! --Basotxerri (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. At just 30 minutes past sunset near a European summer solstice, blue hour has barely begun. On most days the sky tends to become colorless (unless there are pink clouds) during the time between sunset and peak blue hour, and this day is no exception. As a result, the sky is uninteresting and the buildings are just too dark. Take it an hour before sunset, and they will still be illuminated by the sun; take it an hour after sunset, and the sky will have darkened to a beautiful rich blue, allowing the streetlights to balance out the brightness of the sky. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great light.--Ermell (talk) 06:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support for light and peacefulness. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too dark. --Karelj (talk) 09:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jingxian Taohuatan 2017.08.19 06-47-25.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2017 at 11:24:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Taohuatan in Anhui, China. Created, uploaded & nominated by myself. -- Zhangzhugang (talk) 11:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zhangzhugang (talk) 11:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 13:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but to me this looks like either a really good tourist shot, or part of a larger, more FP-worthy panorama. Daniel Case (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, essentially per Daniel. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Opera garnier paris 778c90005.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2017 at 07:36:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created by isogood - uploaded by isogood - nominated by Isogood -- Isogood (talk) 07:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Isogood (talk) 07:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (for now) Nice interior, but please provide maximum resolution --A.Savin 09:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad framing (right lights cut while left ones are all in the frame, bottom part of the stairs missing) and position (not in the middle) - Benh (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin.--Peulle (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A. Savin. Daniel Case (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Look up2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2017 at 14:47:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Katie McColgan - uploaded by NY onja Christian - nominated by NY onja Christian -- NY onja Christian (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- NY onja Christian (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not feeling it - sorry.--Peulle (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand what good is this photo, just looking up for me... --Laitche (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For Laitche --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not getting it, either. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like it, but it needs some better description and non-hidden categories. --El Grafo (talk) 09:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:The tempest Rodin S.01092 Musee Rodin Paris.png, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2017 at 18:03:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Auguste Rodin - rest by me -- Jebulon (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support "The Tempest", a very impressive marble sculpture, by Auguste Rodin. Original and transparent versions available in the file page, as well further informations about this work.-- Jebulon (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The border of the table on the left side looks strange. The statue looks good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Good eye ! Please look at the original, the table is so. Do you wish I do something ?--Jebulon (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at the original. The border looks a bit strange in the original, but it's clearly consistently parallel to the rest of the table, and therefore understandable as part of it. In the current version, it looks a bit ghostly and patchy, so it seems like some kind of defect in the photograph, instead of something that was actually there. I wouldn't be able to give any technical suggestions, but perhaps it might work best to rework that part of the photo from the RAW? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- de minimis non curat praetor. I don't think this detail is important enough IMO. I'll see. Thanks.--Jebulon (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support De minimis non curat praetor, à l'avenant je patronne l'épreuve. Le prédicat est de prix. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek: Done. Better now ?--Jebulon (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - There's still one very subtle stray mark next to the table, but this is good enough, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jebulon and Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think there are masking errors at the left and the right side of the table (a faint brownish line in the black nearly parallel to the borders) --Llez (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Llez. Not at all. Please read the discussion above we had with Ikan.--Jebulon (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Exposure triangle - aperture, shutter speed and ISO.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2017 at 04:39:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info All by me -- WClarke 04:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've seen versions of this diagram, and have found the concept to be helpful, so I decided to make my own public-domain version for Wikipedia. Hopefully it is something photographers here can appreciate. At the very least, if it's not worth featuring, I can get comments from people who know this subject well. Thanks. -- WClarke 04:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Visually it is rather plain, and I don't think it is a work of illustrative art on the level of the best FP diagrams. Secondly I have never understood why some books refer to an exposure triangle. I suppose they think "three" and assume a triangle is a suitable visual metaphor. The corners of the triangle have nothing in common (e.g. freezes motion & shallow DoF), nor to they represent limits to any scale (one can go slower than 1s and faster than 1/1000s). Changing one dimension just makes a different shaped triangle, but doesn't tell you how the three attributes interact to form an image -- the area of the triangle for example, isn't relevant. A better visual metaphor is a cube, where the brightness of the resulting image relates to the volume, and the width = shutter duration, height = aperture size, and depth = ISO. An increase in any of these results in greater brightness. If one uses an appropriate scale, doubling the width (shutter duration) can be compensated by halving the height (aperture size) or depth (ISO) and the same volume (brightness) results. However, at the level of physics, only aperture and shutter speed matter to determine how many photons hit the sensor (if we exclude filters, adding flash light and sensor size as variables the photographer can control), since ISO in the digital age is simply post-capture amplification. -- Colin (talk) 07:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ISO thing makes more sense if you think of it as film sensitivity, so I wouldn't complain about that. But what's bothering me about this and all the other attempts I've see so far is that it doesn't actually tell you anything about exposure. What it should probably tell you is that, for example, at ISO 100, f/8 @ 1/250 will give you the same exposure as f/11 @ 1/125. Increase ISO to 200 and you'll get the same exposure as before at f/8 @ 1/125 or f/11 @ 1/250, or … . This attempt does this "for any given ISO", but you don't need a triangle for that. If demonstrating exposure is not the intention of this, it shouldn't be called an "exposure triangle". But then I think something like the first chart on this page would be much better suited to visualize the non-exposure related effects of changing aperture, shutter speed and film/sensor sensitivity. --El Grafo (talk) 09:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Agree that the diagram on the other page is better to show the effects of changing settings on the image qualities (other than exposure). The cube model does "explain" exposure and how the values each affect the total, but it isn't a particularly complex concept that one needs an analogy -- how much light is gathered by the sensor. The shutter duration and ISO values both double when the exposure doubles (goes up one stop). Only the aperture is strange with all those f/5.6 and f/8 numbers that don't seem to follow a sensible scale nor go the right direction! It makes more sense once you convert to the circular area of the aperture (e.g. f/8 is 122mm² on a 50mm lens, and f/5.6 is 250mm² which is double the area). I don't think the "triangle" model is adding anything useful. -- Colin (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Useful, probably a VI, not an FP in my eyes.--Peulle (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the idea actually, but would be much more intuitive if the triangle were coloured after the amount of exposure (black=dark, white=bright), each coordinate being more or less white. - Benh (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. Just too busy too effectively convey information ... I've seen this done better elsewhere. Daniel Case (talk) 22:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 07:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bilbao - Acceso estación Uribarri 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2017 at 18:32:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool idea and reminds me a bit of Saint Petersburg. Would prefer less bottom though --A.Savin 18:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you but the idea was to have the end of the tunnel in the centre of the image... Your image is very good! --Basotxerri (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not very original, we have a lot of such pictures. Very well executed, but the empty foreground is too prominent in my opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very good -- Spurzem (talk) 07:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shot is OK, but need some improvements. --Mile (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark and per Jebulon. -- Colin (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Support option i like more --Mile (talk) 10:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer this one. -- Wolf im Wald 12:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Procedural oppose. We have established that you need the nominator's permission to add an alt here. Also, whatever brightening you have done to the centre should ideally be done from the raw file and be consistent across the frame -- if you are just brightening the centre then that's misleading adjustment disallowed for FP. -- Colin (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination OK, I'm going to prepare this better and present it again. Thank you all! --Basotxerri (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 13:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:View from bridge to NATO tower toward Perennial Garden NBG LR.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2017 at 12:16:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United_States
All by me. View from bridge to NATO tower toward the Perennial Garden at Norfolk Botanical Garden. Where you see the paved path is the northern tip of the Perennial Garden.PumpkinSky talk 12:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful and well kept garden. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- nicely done, I like the lines created by the water in the foreground and the path in the background, framed by the foliage. Solid composition. Montanabw (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sure, a pretty garden, but I regret that this slice of it doesn't add up to me as a composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The gardens are nice, but this is just a QI. I'm sure we have thousands of nice photos of lovely formal gardens. -- Colin (talk) 11:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 20:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --per Colin--Ermell (talk) 07:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes there are a lot of nice photos of fine gardens, but that alone is not an argument for dismissing another photo of such a place. This place has potential but this photo is not it. This is a scene where you have to work with the different textures in the photo: water, lawn, flowers, trees, just like you would an abstract photo. Framing this so you get some cool diagonal angles would have been better. For example, the tree to the left is totally redundant, it only hinders the viewer to enter the photo and the flowers to the right are cut too short at the bottom, some more water wouldn't hurt. --cart-Talk 08:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @W.carter: The left/right angle could be narrowed but just below the bottom are plants that grow up from the bridge rail and to get the main scene in focus the plants are way out of focus. The bridge is only a few feet wide so I couldn't go backwards any farther. I could try again with different f/stops but I didn't like the way the bridge plants got in the way. PumpkinSky talk 09:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are probably many other ways to photograph this park. My comments above were just a few pointers to my oppose. Don't get hung up on this particular scene. --cart-Talk 09:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- - I withdraw my nomination PumpkinSky talk 11:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 13:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Apis mellifera - Senecio paludosus - Keila.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2017 at 05:21:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera
Info Honey bee on the fen ragwort (Senecio paludosus). All by Ivar (talk) 05:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 05:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the rare cases where I cannot resist to vote for an insect, and even for a common one )) --A.Savin 09:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Beautifull NY onja Christian (talk) 11:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. I'll use this in my biology class to illustrate how pollen clings to the bee.--Peulle (talk) 12:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Common, but good. Charles (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 17:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent -- Spurzem (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition! One of our better macros -- Thennicke (talk) 03:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great shot! -- -donald- (talk) 06:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bob Collowan (talk) 10:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Yann (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 23:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I find myself coming back to this photo a lot and really enjoying it, so I'll support it like everyone else. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 12:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 13:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Panorama vom Heldrastein.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2017 at 08:50:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Panoramic view from the Heldrastein, verry close to the former Inner German border. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 08:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 08:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --nice work. Again a lot to see. Very intersting and good quality.--Ermell (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support great --Nikhil B (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - How many degrees is that panorama? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Info About 160°. I've added it into the image description now. More horizontal perspektive isn´t possible from the cliff. --Milseburg (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate the labeling and the overall usefulness and of course achievement of this photo, but I don't like the hazy light much, so I'm likely to abstain from voting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 13:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Newark Penn Station June 2015 002.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2017 at 20:46:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info Note that the walkway is inherently not completely centered; the reasonable thing to do was to prioritize symmetry around the overhang and the main doors.
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why are the plants and the guy standing on the right blurry? PumpkinSky talk 22:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Long exposure, 1s. In that time there can be a bit of wind and people moving about... -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice, looks better IMHO if you crop out the plant containers at the extreme ends.--Nikhil B (talk) 02:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the ghosts are strange, but so be it. Support - Very good, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 12:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, maybe I just don't get it, but there's nothing particularly wow-y about this for me. --El Grafo (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Same as El Grafo.--Jebulon (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice to see a picture of a place I've been through more than a few times here ... Daniel Case (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Strange argument...--Jebulon (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jebulon: That was a comment, not an argument. Daniel Case (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- - of course. No offense I hope.--Jebulon (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like that... --Basotxerri (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per El Grafo. --Karelj (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with El Grafo. Plus the three blurry people are odd; and the guy in front of the plant is just freaky. HalfGig talk 11:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Milseburg (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 21:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Québec city at night, view from Lévis city.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2017 at 17:51:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Canada
Info All by -- The Photographer 17:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. Charles (talk)
Support great --Nikhil B (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not sure about the crop / half cut buildings --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Martin mentioned, bad crop.--Mile (talk) 08:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Mile and Martin Falbisoner. Thanks --The Photographer 22:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

weak support now --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The new crop improved the picture, but some of the highlights seem blown, especially the white ones on the building to the right, but also some of the windows in the Chateau de Frontenac. Maybe this can't be helped. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep my vote, left also isnt well croped. --Mile (talk) 07:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see in the image description, the main object (quebec city) is far and I find very difficult to take a better picture with my current lens. Thanks --The Photographer 22:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but could you dial back the highlights slightly? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do it because the light difference. It's not a hdr picture and dial back the white will convert it on greay showing a false reality. In this case maybe the solution is buy another lens. I'm open to some recomendation.

I wouldn't be able to recommend anything; I just work with what I see. But making white and yellow highlights a little less bright is really going to make them gray? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek Yes, becasue it was allready done, I uploaded the raw, maybe you would help. --The Photographer 16:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support because I think this scene is more panorama-worthy ... it makes me want to see more. Daniel Case (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support And 7.... --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't really feel this is quite an FP. It doesn't seem quite clear enough, the blown highlights bug me, I think Mile has a point about the left crop not being optimal, and there's nothing wonderful going on with the way my eyes move around the picture frame that trumps all of this for me. Maybe none of these things could be helped, but that doesn't make the photo an FP, in my mind. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan Kekek--shizhao (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 21:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Safety boats, ferry, Aidipsos, Evia Greece.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2017 at 16:43:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info created and uploaded by Jebulon - nominated by W.carter -- cart-Talk 16:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support An intriguing nautical mystery picture, how could I not want to nominate this. :-) -- cart-Talk 16:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support...Taken while thinking of your style, dear Cart. I have some others for you. Thanks for nom !!--Jebulon (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cart-esque indeed! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing of interesting for me --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks slightly underexposed.--Ermell (talk) 07:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Any more exposure and many of the small highlights will be blown. Histogram looks ok too. The boats are just a bit dirty. --cart-Talk 08:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you cart. I'm not sure that Ermell is totaly wrong nevertheless... I have the same feeling, but the light was so harsh that the use of a filter was a mandatory. Anyway, I'm not toooootaly happy with this orange. But there is no way to improve this (I tried...). As you say: Any more exposure and many of the small highlights will be blown.--Jebulon (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Interesting texture and shapes. Daniel Case (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 21:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Spb 06-2017 img07 Trinity Cathedral.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2017 at 20:11:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Russia
Info Central dome of the Trinity Cathedral in Saint Petersburg, all by A.Savin --A.Savin 20:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 20:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice sky --Nikhil B (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just... woow. I like the composition. Amazing blue. just fabulous. Vraiment exceptionnelle.NY onja Christian (talk) 03:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A dome....nothing of interesting --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--A.Savin 23:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The photo seems to clearly slope down to the left of center, and at least the smaller dome on the right seems to slope down to the right. I see no-one's commented on this, but why is it happening, and should anything be done to fix it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: my guess would be lens distortion, which is pretty common in drone cameras (but not always as recognizable as here, depending on what's depicted). The focal length of 8.8 mm has about the same field of view as a 24 mm lens on 135 format ("Full Frame"). That's a pretty wide angle, so some distortion can be expected. But it seems that there are options for automated software correction available for Adobe products [1]. --El Grafo (talk) 14:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that info, El Grafo. A.Savin, any comments about this? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you wish. My intention was, to show the entire central dome as close as possible. Not sure is some distortion on the small domes (of them at least two always will appear along with the big one) is evitable, nor if I could do any more about it with LR/PS. Feel free to vote as you like, I'm not Livioandronico and will surely neither insult you for that nor vote anywhere in revenge )) --A.Savin 20:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I laughed out loud at that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per NYoC above. Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 11:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose - I like this photo a lot, but I don't really understand why the distortion can't be fixed, and it bugs me sufficiently to oppose in spite of everything that's good about this picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan Kekek--shizhao (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 21:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Indian coracle.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2017 at 02:35:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info created and uploaded by Gnissah - nominated by Nikhil B -- Nikhil B (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nikhil B (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Correct perspective -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 02:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perspective fixed. Yann (talk) 11:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting. Yann (talk) 11:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something out of the ordinary. Good wow factor. :) --Peulle (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spurzem (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes !--Jebulon (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing of interesting for me --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 22:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support perfect --Mile (talk) 07:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann and Peulle. Zhangj1079 (T|C|U) 00:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meets my National Geographic test. Daniel Case (talk) 03:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. HalfGig talk 23:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support National Geographic Level, Amazing !!! --The Photographer 22:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 20:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Puerto de Vestmannaeyjar, Heimaey, Islas Vestman, Suðurland, Islandia, 2014-08-17, DD 017-019 PAN.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2017 at 22:49:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Vestmannaeyjar harbour, Heimaey‎, Westman Islands, Suðurland, Iceland. All by me, Poc o² 22:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 22:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --Nikhil B (talk) 02:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alexander Leisser (talk) 05:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I could ask for a little less exposure on the forecastles of some of the ships, but that would be being obsessively picky. Daniel Case (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not good framing, no wow fo me - the connection of industrial buildings with beautifull nature...--Karelj (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Better to re-stitch by Lightroom 6 or later version since light of each frames are not even. --Laitche (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Laitche, I can do that, but not before Monday evening. Poc o² 08:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Laitche: Done, sorry for the delay. Please, let me know what you think. Poc o² 05:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's better --Laitche (talk) 12:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 20:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Río Moscova, Moscú, Rusia, 2016-10-03, DD 16-17 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2017 at 22:39:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info Moskva River, Moscow, Russia -- Poc o² 22:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 22:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A very beautiful scene of course - but a bit weak technically. I think the bar for cityscapes at FPC has risen high enough that a 35 MP image warrants pixel-peeping. On the right the green buildings aren't really sharp, and there is Canon banding in the recovered shadow on the left (as well as a little in the road on the right). Still, these are not huge concerns so remaining neutral. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The right side is a bit of a problem, but I take the main subject here to be the large square building on the mid-left, so I'll focus my attentions on that. It is of pretty good quality considering the conditions. I agree that the technical quality could have been a bit higher, but on the other hand I'm following the FPC rule that an image can be promoted anyway (as long as the flaws are not too bad) if the wow factor is sufficient. In this case, I feel it is.--Peulle (talk) 07:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Peulle. Very large file and doesn't seem too problematic to me, but I do react to its beauty and good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Visible line between noisy and less noisy area on the river is imho really distracting. --Ivar (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ivar, do you mean the bottom right? that smoother area is due to a ship. Not sure what you expect me to do. Poc o² 15:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Мосҝва ночю! Молодец! Daniel Case (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spurzem (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 20:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Maria-Limbach-026421.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2017 at 08:28:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The pilgrimage church of Maria Limbach in front of Franconian vineyards.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by Ermell - uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Ermell -- Ermell (talk) 08:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 08:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charming composition with colorful vineyards in the background. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Johann. PumpkinSky talk 11:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others (something went wrong with the nomination page). --Ivar (talk) 14:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You had accidentally written "file" two times when creating the nomination page, calling it File:File:Maria-Limbach-026421.jpg. I have moved the page for you and hopefully things are ok now. --cart-Talk 19:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Spurzem (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support (and thanks to Cart...)--Jebulon (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I really like the colors, but I'd like more room in front of the church in general and in front of and to the right of the cemetery in particular, and when I look at the photo at full size to see if there's something that could compensate for that, the blurry parts that are too close to focus become obtrusive, starting close to the center of the near side of the picture frame. So while I'm definitely sympathetic to the supporters' reactions, I am introducing a note of dissension here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I suspect that if you got more room below, you'd lose more of the colorful vineyards (assuming that's what they are) behind the church, and you might get more of those blurred branches. It's a trade-off ... since it's Germany I can't tell easily from Street View what the lay of the land was like, but it does look like the church is at the bottom of a small valley. Daniel Case (talk) 03:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Opera Sechselaeutenplatz Zuerich.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2017 at 11:44:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Shootzurich - uploaded by Shootzurich - nominated by Shootzurich -- Shootzurich (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Shootzurich (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the motif and composition, but the picture seems grainy, and the right part of the building is leaning slightly to the left. The latter may be fixed. I don't know about the former. --Bob Collowan (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Assigning categories to a photo is not the same as tagging an image in social media. Please read the guidelines at Commons:Categories. I have fixed the categories for this photo for you but you should do that yourself in the future. --cart-Talk 15:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing of interesting --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well done. Zhangj1079 (T|C|U) 00:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 05:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems too busy to me ... I can't tell if the photographer intended the people in front or the buildings to be the subject. Daniel Case (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others: not a FP --Milseburg (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Milseburg. --Karelj (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:The fisherman's bicycle.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2017 at 21:10:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Sweden
Info All by me, -- cart-Talk 21:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 21:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but the bycicle (subject of this photo) is in shadows, and not enough sharp Ezarateesteban 12:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ezarate: Actually, the whole scene is the subject but that is hard to convey in a short title, as was the category. I don't think this is suitable for the FP category "Bicyles", perhaps "People" but the nearest I could come up with was "Places". Suggestions are welcome. I know that scenes are usually sneered at here since people just want plain clear photos of one identifiable subject. I think scenes that tell a story have a place here too. --cart-Talk 12:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want to see anothers opinions but if all is the subject then nothing is in focus Ezarateesteban 12:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Je-str (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why??? Ezarateesteban 19:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Je-str, thanks for voting but when 'opposing' a nomination you need to give the reason for it, those are the rules. --cart-Talk 19:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination, no need to drag this thing out. --cart-Talk 21:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 21:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rammstein aux Arènes de Nîmes 13 juillet 2017 11.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2017 at 16:22:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Gene-K - uploaded by Gene-K - nominated by Gene-K -- Julien (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Julien (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 21:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rammstein aux Arènes de Nîmes 13 juillet 2017 18.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2017 at 16:21:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Gene-K - uploaded by Gene-K - nominated by Gene-K -- Julien (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Julien (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 21:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Старый мост через Ижору в Колпино. - panoramio.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2017 at 06:44:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects #Railway bridge.
Info The old bridge over Izhora River, Kolpino, created by panoramio user "401" - uploaded by bot - nominated by AKA MBG -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 06:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 06:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Beautiful scene but insufficient quality and really small. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan.--Peulle (talk) 12:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan; missing metadata makes it impossible to determine whether this is the best that could be done under those circumstances. Daniel Case (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 13:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:2013.08.23.-01-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim-Blutrote Heidelibelle-Weibchen.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2017 at 15:28:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Libellulidae (Skimmers)
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well composed, sharp, cool control of DoF with the wing in the foreground. Happy to support your candidate. --Sputniktilt (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not as good as exisitng FP of the female of this species. Charles (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent for me because of good sharpness, beautiful colors and esthetic composition. -- Spurzem (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. One or two existing FPs are arguably better, but at this level of quality, I'm not thinking of such very minor differences as a reason not to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nikhil B (talk) 02:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Phong Nha-Ke Bang cave3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2017 at 20:21:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Photo of Tiên Sơn cave. Created, uploaded and nominated by me -- - [Tycho] ^talk 20:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- - [Tycho] ^talk 20:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I will be a bit surprised if this ends up being featured, because I can easily imagine criticisms such as that the darkest parts are invisible and the visible parts in shadow and maybe a few other parts aren't that sharp. But invisibly dark spots are natural in caves, and what really works for me is the composition, which inexorably pulls me toward the exit - literally, the light at the end of the tunnel. If others think that technical issues don't sustain an FP nomination, I will respect that, but to me, this photo really works artistically and as a kind of concrete metaphor. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 08:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I underline every word of Ikan. Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan --Peulle (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Birla Mandir in Hyderabad, 2015.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2017 at 03:51:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info All by me -- Nikhil B (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nikhil B (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not sharp enough and too hazy, in my opinion. You shot this at 11:08. Why don't you try shooting it in something other than midday light? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Nikhil B (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 08:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Park Galicica 2013.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2017 at 08:40:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Ptahhotep - uploaded by Ptahhotep - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having been here a couple of weeks ago, I don't think this picture does the place justice. Charles (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm OK with it as an image; I haven't been there so I can't judge how representative it is. But ... it's less sharp in the background than I think a featured landscape should be. Daniel Case (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 08:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Врвот Стив 2015.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2017 at 08:33:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Шпиц - uploaded by Шпиц - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 20:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a composition I can support. Those trees are not right. Charles (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles; it sort of looks like a crop from a more featurable image. Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 08:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bilbao - Zubizuri 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2017 at 18:51:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice and interesting. PumpkinSky talk 23:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose random composition - Benh (talk) 07:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh.--Karelj (talk) 09:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry not Random but not very interesting --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a tempting subject indeed, but I don't think this is the optimal way to shoot it. There is something slightly off in the angles and perspective. Sorry. --cart-Talk 08:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Basotxerri (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 08:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Banana tree Ambohibao.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2017 at 07:09:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info All by me. -- NY onja Christian (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- NY onja Christian (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not wowed, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 07:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 21:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ferhat-Pasha mosque arabesque (Banja Luka, Republika Srpska).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2017 at 19:02:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Ferhat-Pasha mosque arabesque, Banja Luka, Republika Srpska. --Mile (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Peulle (talk) 06:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 10:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 11:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic color interplay. --Bob Collowan (talk) 12:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 13:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks a bit soft on the extreme left, but how could I not support this? --El Grafo (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too soft....and not complete --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pygargue.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2017 at 15:57:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes#Haliaeetus#Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Info created by Kathy 2408 - uploaded by NY onja Christian - nominated by NY onja Christian -- NY onja Christian (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- NY onja Christian (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The species needs to be identified (there are several species within the genus Haliaeetus) and the categorization needs to be fixed (Category:Birds is inappropriate). Where was the image taken? --Cayambe (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC) *

Done fixed.[reply]

Comment I like this photo but looks over-processed especially sharp or high-pass and blue CAs. Plus it's suspected of up-scaling. (File size is larger than camera's maximum resolution.) --Laitche (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blue borders around the head, overexposed white feathers and noisy in the lower right part --Llez (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Location and category fixed Done NY onja Christian (talk) 04:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Inspiring (from an American perspective anyway) but as noted better pictures like this are possible. Daniel Case (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, really cool but the tech quality and processing must be better. --cart-Talk 08:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Peulle (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Silver-spotted skipper (Hesperia comma) underside Macedonia.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2017 at 15:30:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info The small globules of liquid on the wing indicate that this little skipper (wingspan about 34mm) has just emerged (in the Republic of Macedonia). I left in the ant that photobombed the shot. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support and a question: are there two parasites on the wing? If yes, that should be mentionned in the description. --Sputniktilt (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. See the description above. They're not parasites. Charles (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should read the description first ;-) Thank you! --Sputniktilt (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Such descriptions/info should be on the file's page where it can be seen long after this nom is over. I have copied it there but please think about that in the future. --cart-Talk 22:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The plant parts before the face don't want to get my friends. --Hockei (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 10:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 21:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Basilika Mariazell Hauptportal 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2017 at 10:36:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Austria
Info Main portal of Mariazell Basilica, Styria, Austria. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 11:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent composition, I may even excuse some blown whites at the window. --A.Savin 13:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good.--Ermell (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is great and has to be looked at at full size to be judged fairly. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent detail. -- Colin (talk) 11:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 20:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Love that symmetry! (Well, almost ... the two shields have different designs, but you don't notice that until you look at it at full-res). Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 10:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 16:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Berberomeloe majalis April 2017-2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2017 at 12:29:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info The Red-stripped Oil Beetle Berberomeloe majalis [2] is one of the largest beetles in Europe, with a typical length of 5cm. In the larval state they are parasitic and live in the nests of solitary bees. In the adult state they are exclusively herbivorous and can be found in great numbers grazing in the dry and open grasslands of Portugal, Spain and Northern Africa. While the best-known specimens exhibit the typical red stripes from which their name derived, populations of entirely black beetles, like the one in the image, are also common. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 13:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't love the appearance of this insect, but this achievement surely deserves a star. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spurzem (talk) 07:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ugly bug, nice picture... ;) --Yann (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yuk! --cart-Talk 08:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann Daniel Case (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 17:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Central-eastern Brazil, by Copernicus Sentinel-2A satellite.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2017 at 17:12:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images
Info created by ESA / Copernicus Sentinel-2A, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The European Space Agency (ESA) recently released some of its images under a free license. Very high resolution, great level of details, nice colors. -- Yann (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How many of these are there? If there are only a few, we can promote them all assuming they're good enough, but if there are hundreds, we'll need to compare them and only pick the best ones... -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This one is the largest. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Pretty fascinating to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 10:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 12:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A satellite picture that has its own wow. Daniel Case (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 17:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Harvey 2017-08-25 2231Z.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2017 at 23:38:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images
Info created (because it's from SLIDER) and uploaded by Meow- nominated by SMB99thx -- SMB99thx (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks very natural and amazing. I am attracted because of this.-- SMB99thx (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Was the original bigger? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the original resolution (1 km) of GOES-16. 🐱💬 10:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Recentism. Have a look at existing FPs such as File:Low pressure system over Iceland.jpg and File:ParmaMelor AMO TMO 2009279 lrg.jpg both of which are much more detailed images. I think it worth waiting to see if better images are uploaded later. It is quite a good image, as these go, with a nice variety of blue, green and brown land. -- Colin (talk) 10:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope other satellites like Suomi NPP had taken a better image, yet all of them missed Harvey’s peak intensity. 🐱💬 10:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Request I'd like a bigger version.--Peulle (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Not possible as this is captured by GOES-16. 🐱💬 10:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a surprisingly good picture. If a larger version isn't uploaded i'll support this. Sixflashphoto (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not possible to get a larger version unless you want the red band only. 🐱💬 10:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. Probably useful as a VI, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I could try to do that very soon. I'll do that only if this is failed to be a featured picture. --SMB99thx (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 17:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rose Wife of Bath 17RM2420-PSD.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2017 at 07:09:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created by Ermell - uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Ermell -- Ermell (talk) 07:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 07:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The small drops make me Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Three very nice specimens and very sharp, but the light seems a bit too blue for me and the NR makes the petals appear a little plastic. --cart-Talk 09:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak regretful oppose per cart.Daniel Case (talk) 05:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Better now per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I made some changes which hopefully increased the quality.--Ermell (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Your changes did help. Beautiful roses, good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sorry, this one dropped of my radar but I'll support it now that it is re-processed. Very Laura Ashley. ;) --cart-Talk 18:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 17:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Small greenhouse with grapevines escaping.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2017 at 10:50:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Sweden
Info "The Great Escape". :) All by me, -- cart-Talk 10:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 10:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've gotta be free!!! PumpkinSky talk 12:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This happens when you don't close the windows thoroughly, so take care about it! --Basotxerri (talk) 12:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice clean background too -- Thennicke (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Everything neat and clean. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This would not be so interesting if there was a forest or some kind of nature in the background. -- -donald- (talk) 05:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 06:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per -donald- Yes, Yes it would! Sixflashphoto (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spurzem (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 20:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have been looking forward to getting up to cast my !vote on this image. When I was previewing it a few days ago, I stopped and thought "this has to be one of cart's". I was right ... and I love the image, especially the way those particular shades of red and green play off each other. Daniel Case (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 20:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Expo 98 January 2016-5.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2017 at 18:10:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Minimalism again. Pattern in a wall of a modern bulding. Parque das Nações, Lisbon, Portugal. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent. I've been captivated by patterns like this since I was a little kid. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - yes, minimalism. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
YES SIR! -- Slaunger (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me nothing of interesting... --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Livioandronico2013. Zhangj1079 (T|C|U) 00:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --Nikhil B (talk) 02:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support WClarke 04:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 07:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Livioandronico2013 --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but could you maybe add geocoding and some information about what kind of building this is? --El Grafo (talk) 09:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doing in thirds, or something like panorama should work better. --Mile (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMO no. This is a perfect framing for this subject. --cart-Talk 17:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unusual but good.--Ermell (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 22:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mường Thanh Valley.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2017 at 20:52:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info Early morning in the Mường Thanh valley, Vietnam. Created, uploaded and nominated by Shansov.net -- - [Tycho] ^talk 20:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- - [Tycho] ^talk 20:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very tranquil. PumpkinSky talk 23:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per PumpkinSky. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (Martin Falbisoner)
Support Not on technical proficiency, but only because I like it. Sixflashphoto (talk) 06:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spurzem (talk) 07:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support All it needs is the celestial choir going ooooooh and aaaaah. Daniel Case (talk) 06:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 15:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Two-tailed pasha (Charaxes jasius jasius) Greece.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2017 at 17:30:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info The elusive two-tailed pasha (Charaxes jasius jasius) is a special target for butterfly enthusists in Europe as it is our only Charaxes butterfly. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very pretty. I can see why it's a target for enthusiasts. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spurzem (talk) 07:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 20:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 10:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bassin Louise de Québec.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2017 at 04:19:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info All by -- The Photographer 04:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Sorry, absolutely a QI, and the composition is excellent but the noise keeps it from being a FP for me. Sixflashphoto (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's better but I just can't bring myself to support it as a FP right now. Sixflashphoto (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ per Sixflashphoto, but I'm less convinced it's a QI. Really nice mood, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sixflashphoto: and @Ikan Kekek: Please take another look, I fixed the noise and the overdone shadow compensation. Thanks --The Photographer 17:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Better. I crossed out my oppose vote but that's all I'm doing for now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because the light conditions and objects not static (not buildings for example) was imposible take this picture without ISO and preventing the motion blur in all the boats. I can't understand why we need apply the same rule for all the pictures on different conditions and equipment. Thanks anyway for the reviews --The Photographer 12:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I can see what you were trying for. But all that dark backlit area in the center of the image sort of ruins the effect you saw. Daniel Case (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case The first upload is better, however, the Noise situation come and it's simply a paradox to me. Noise because ISO not should be a problem in this case because I'm applying the techique and tool that I have. --The Photographer 00:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:USS Intrepid (CV-11).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2017 at 23:33:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info created by Kong of Lasers -- It's Kong of Lazers 你好 23:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- It's Kong of Lazers 你好 23:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 11:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Čermeľská železnica - narrow-gauge lokomotive "Krutwig" 03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2017 at 09:34:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 09:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 09:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The front of the engine is too dark at the moment. Charles (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Will probably support if shadows corrected. Charles (talk) 07:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I do not agree to Charles' comment --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Charles. --cart-Talk 17:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's my opinion too. The composition is very good, the locomotive is nice but the front too dark. Perhaps it is correctable. -- Spurzem (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I agree with Charles. Lighten up the darks a little bit, so the details will be more visible. -- -donald- (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I agree with Charles here. Feel free to ping me if this gets fixed. PumpkinSky talk 11:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, per Charles. --Laitche (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles.--Jebulon (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shadows are too dark. --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kasir (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since nothing has happened with the photo. --cart-Talk 18:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 12:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frea pass Sella group Dolomites.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2017 at 12:58:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC) after encouragement by Ikan Kekek[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support for this beautiful fairytale, Bosch-like landscape. The latest revision seems to have improved the photo, but why is it a bit smaller now? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison with Bosch is apt -- Thennicke (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wow --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spurzem (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PumpkinSky talk 00:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! --cart-Talk 09:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 02:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 07:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --- [Tycho] ^talk 09:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blown cloud edges at upper right not enough to de-wow this for me, and I suppose they were inevitable. Daniel Case (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Surely a QI but the sky on the right side is failed and prevents FP in my eyes. Sorry. --Milseburg (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pixels are short at the upper right corner --Laitche (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This vote will not change nothing, so I feel free to say that I agree with Milseburg.--Jebulon (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Moroder: After a more careful look, I see the small white wedge in the upper right corner mentioned by Laitche. Can you please fix this? --cart-Talk 05:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- ooops @W.carter: ,@Laitche: I've been wondering what Laitche ment with "Pixels are short", there were actually none (sounds like a polite british way :-))). Thanks for the hint!--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Amazing landscape, but the sky on the right... --Ivar (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 10:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 13:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The flight of a griffon.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2017 at 16:18:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes
Info created by Artemy_Voikhansky - nominated by Artemy_Voikhansky -- Artemy Voikhansky (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Artemy Voikhansky (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - What a face! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Very sharp claws.--Ermell (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb photo of the bird. The crop on the right should not be so tight, but considering how hard this subject is... HalfGig talk 20:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - On the condition that it is more tightly cropped; the background adds very little to the image. WolfmanSF (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't know how much processing has been done, but it's still nice. Charles (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 12:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --It's Kong of Lazers 你好 00:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 10:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 11:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Зелени јаболка во Преспа.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2017 at 15:32:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info all by me. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing really wrong with the technical quality, but for FP I'm not seeing any wow factor; the top-down angle and boring light don't add any coolness to it.--Peulle (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't say "Wow" when I look at a lot of green apples. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 16:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boring lighting, underexposed, unexciting arrangement of the fruit. -- Colin (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 23:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elizabeth Tower (Big Ben), London (geograph 5416840).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2017 at 01:57:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Transfered from Pixabay, uploaded by Kong of Lasers- nominated by Kong of Lasers -- Talk to Kong of Lasers 01:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Talk to Kong of Lasers 01:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise, not very sharp, slightly over-processed and average composition. Sorry but not a FP imo.--ArildV (talk) 07:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per ArildV. There's also a chromatic aberration problem.--Peulle (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 07:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017.01.20.-54-Paradiski-La Plagne-Piste bretelle trieuse--Plagne Villages.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2017 at 15:17:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#France
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A majority of the houses are in shadow. There are comparatively few scenes where backlighting works, and for me this is not one of them. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King; might have been a different story just a couple of hours earlier. Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sun shadow play makes the picture extra interesting. Shadow belongs to the sun. I'll never understand this "Oh shadow, no!"-thing.
I withdraw my nomination --Hockei (talk) 08:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 07:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hrafnseyrarheiði, Vestfirðir, Islandia, 2014-08-15, DD 024 PAN.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2017 at 04:30:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Landscape in Hrafnseyrarheiði, district of Vestfirðir, Iceland. All by me, Poc o² 04:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 04:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great landscape, but from a FP-panorama with an image hight of less then 1700 pixels, I expect more sharpness. This is too blurry on the right side. The grey sky is a bit dull. Sorry. --Milseburg (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Milseburg. Je-str (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per Milseburg. I so badly want to like it but it just isn't technically good enough. Daniel Case (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 18:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poc o² 06:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bat cave in El Maviri Sinaloa - Mexico.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2017 at 02:14:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support If Alfred Hitchcock saw this, he would be pleased. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality could be better but atmosphere is just stunning. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others - that's an arresting image! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support National Geographis meets Batman. What an achievement to get such a photo; bats, clouds moon and all. Well done! --cart-Talk 08:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nikhil B (talk) 09:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very good if the dust spot would be removed.--Ermell (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ermell there are spots that may look like dust spots but they are actually bats, please point ou the one you refere to and I will be glad to correct it. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Done. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wow! --Lošmi (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oh Absolutely! Sixflashphoto (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support; the dust spot can easily be removed. Daniel Case (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good--Ermell (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 11:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poc o² 06:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Cirsium eriophorum (Kozara National Park, Republika Srpska).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2017 at 06:41:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Family : Asteraceae (Sunflowers)
Info Cirsium eriophorum blossoming (Kozara National Park, Republika Srpska). My shot. --Mile (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Almost too perfect. :) --cart-Talk 09:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - like cart says, awesome! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support upper crop is a bit tight, but nevertheless FP to me. --Ivar (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very crisp, I like it a lot.--Peulle (talk) 11:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Peulle. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment amazing detail, but why the tight crop? I've been looking at this every day! Will support with better crop Charles (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning. Great job. PumpkinSky talk 14:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a detail! --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop above is much too tight. Also the shadow or darkness above is disturbing me. --Hockei (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tight crop. Sorry, but a FP must be a FP.--Jebulon (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tight crop but very good....wow is there --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not because of the crop, but because of the technical quality --Llez (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Llez. Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit tight on the crop though. -- KTC (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poc o² 06:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kukenan Tepuy desde la Sabana.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2017 at 22:55:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Kukenan Tepuy in Venezuela, uploaded by Joevenjo - nominated by Oscar . -- Oscar_. (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Oscar_. (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. Beautiful landscape but resolution is too low. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is nice but as King said, the resolution is too low for this kind of photo. There are also the blown clouds, lens flares in the left to center of the photo and it looks a little bit oversaturated at the bottom. --cart-Talk 08:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per cart. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 11:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lübeck, An der Mauer 51 -- 2017 -- 0460.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2017 at 07:09:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 07:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 07:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, good image, but no wow for FP. --Karelj (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the contrast -- Thennicke (talk) 01:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Karelj. The leaning buildings are interesting up to a point, but this doesn't add up to me, compositionally. I feel like the white building in front mainly serves to block the better view I want to see of the half tower. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No wow, looks like a pretty standard tourist shot. Daniel Case (talk) 02:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 11:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pfarrwerfen Kirche Innenraum 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2017 at 07:14:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Austria
Info Interior and gothic high altar of the parish church St. Cyriak in Pfarrwerfen, federal state of Salzburg, Austria. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Elegant photo. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ----Ermell (talk) 08:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 16:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW WOW--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 22:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 11:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jägala juga 22-03-2013.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2017 at 17:34:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Jägala waterfall. All by Ivar (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 02:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Definitely an interesting motif, but I don't like the crops on the left, top or right, which cut things off and cause me to feel tense. Although, did you want the photo to be tense and represent brokenness? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice colors, but overall just too busy to work for me. Daniel Case (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. --cart-Talk 08:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice motif but per Daniel, a bit chaotic Poc o² 11:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PIA19048 realistic color Europa mosaic.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2017 at 19:17:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Astronomy#Natural_satellites
Info created by NASA/Jet Propulsion Lab-Caltech/SETI Institute - uploaded by WolfmanSF - nominated by WolfmanSF -- WolfmanSF (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- WolfmanSF (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A little small, but supporting because it's Europa! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 20:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Münster, Altstadt, Panorama -- 2017 -- 2075-9.jpg - not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2017 at 05:03:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 05:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 05:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- very nice composition, but the curved roof of the house is too much to ignore. Also, the image is not that sharp IMHO. Sorry --Nikhil B (talk) 05:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per Nikhil. Daniel Case (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I'll sharpen the image, but I can follow the arguments. Thank you. --XRay ^talk 15:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--XRay ^talk 15:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Чамац на ушћу реке Уне у Саву (Доња Градина).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2017 at 15:46:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Boat on the mouth of river Una to river Sava, Donja Gradina, Republika Srpska. On right side is Croatia, Sava river is border. --Mile (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tilted, please fix. Yann (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How did you find it ? I think its straight. --Mile (talk) 06:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overexposed upper right corner --The Photographer 23:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technical issues aside, it's a very busy composition that just doesn't have wow for me. Daniel Case (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Nikhil B (talk) 05:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Mile (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 19:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Southern white admiral (Limenitis reducta) underside Greece.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2017 at 14:03:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info It's fascinating how different the upperside of the wings are - a deep blue. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
wing upperside,
for comparison
Support -- Charles (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand what is nominated. The underside, the combination between under- and upper side ? The strange (indeed) phenomenon ? This is not clear for me.--Jebulon (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The upperside is just shown for information. It is not part of the nomination. Charles (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I like this photo, but I don't think enough of the butterfly is sharp for the photo to meet the standards set by you and others for FP butterflies. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan; also that kind-of blown area near the head. Daniel Case (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination On reflection, I think I agree! Charles (talk) 08:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 19:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Premiere sortie de l'Hermione dsc3310E.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2017 at 22:09:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info created and uploaded by Jp.sembely, nominated by Yann (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ezarateesteban 22:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Lovely ship and just overall pleasant picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - PumpkinSky talk 01:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 11:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 16:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice ship with minimal distracting background, but at only 6MP the technical quality is quite far from FP level (e.g Christian's photos) with way to much contrast/clarity and little detail. -- Colin (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. --cart-Talk 16:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose. Regret per Ikan; oppose per Colin and cart. Daniel Case (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin -- KTC (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is what I'd consider to have "borderline wow factor," and would need something like 20 sharp megapixels to get the nod from me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Yann (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 19:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aqueduct of Chemtou 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2017 at 10:04:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info created by -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)] - uploaded by -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC) - nominated by IssamBarhoumi -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice, but sorry: too soft, not sharp enough. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and why would you take this sort of picture on such a miserable day? Charles (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- dear Charles (talk) it is a very far site and I arrived at that time ... it is a beautiful scene the idea behind is that the panorama is like a Triptych --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As said.--Mile (talk) 12:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles; the weather unforrtunately does not add to this image. Daniel Case (talk) 03:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Ralf Roleček 11:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Talk to Kong of Lasers 16:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- - dear all thank you I will do better next time IssamBarhoumi (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination IssamBarhoumi (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 19:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Addax-Jerusalem-Biblical-Zoo-IZE-611.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2017 at 15:59:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Addax nasomaculatus in Jerusalem Biblical Zoo

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info created by MathKnight - uploaded by MathKnight - nominated by MathKnight -- MathKnight ✡ (Talk) 15:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MathKnight ✡ (Talk) 15:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not in focus, lighting is poor, partly over-exposed and the animal's eye is shut. Charles (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not quite sharp enough for FP, IMO.--Peulle (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The black border is a no-go for FPs. --cart-Talk 16:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Same as W.carter.--Talk to Kong of Lasers 17:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 19:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beautiful Sunset at Torrey Pines.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2017 at 02:34:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info all by Kong of Lasers -- Talk to Kong of Lasers 02:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Talk to Kong of Lasers 02:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm doubtful whether this is a QI; it's certainly not an FP. The composition is OK but not outstanding for a sunset, and the photo is of rather poor quality, noisy, and posterized/pixellated in places. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan.--Peulle (talk) 08:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose FPC shouldn´t have such a strong tilt. --Milseburg (talk) 11:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the two above and the bright area in the middle is overexposed. PumpkinSky talk 11:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the image quality isn't ok for FP. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 19:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Münster, Dom -- 2017 -- 2092.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2017 at 04:49:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 04:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 04:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Only part of building visible, overall chaotic impression for me.--Karelj (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the composition/crop is too tight imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is an outstanding and very interesting perspective on the cathedral with many details. I think only the Überwasserkirche in the background is a bit disturbing, but it doesn´t really matter. --Milseburg (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Milesburg. HalfGig talk 00:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 11:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Might well be a VI for the way it captures the church in its urban context. But I don't see an FP here as the Uberwasskirche scaffolding is distracting ... one unfamiliar with Münster (i.e., myself) could easily think the other building's tower to be part of the church too. Daniel Case (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Martin Falbisoner. Sorry. --Nikhil B (talk) 04:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak support Kind of blurry in the background, but may be caused by my computer. --It's Kong of Lazers 你好 00:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Kong of Lasers: Please do not use these templates, as the bot doesn't recognize them. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yann I'm sorry, I saw somebody else use it. --It's Kong of Lazers 你好 22:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Kong of Lasers: But you can use {{support|weak support}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Yann: Thanks!!!--It's Kong of Lazers 你好 22:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 07:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hapalémur gris (Hapalemur griseus), Parc Zoologique de Paris (3).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2017 at 06:31:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by NRJMelvinT - uploaded by NRJMelvinT - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 06:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 06:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The reflection in the eyes does not look nice. --Yann (talk) 09:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cute, but not sharp. Charles (talk) 10:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mostly per Yann but there is also a lot of color noise in the photo. --cart-Talk 16:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not sharp anywhere at full size, which I think is not OK for a zoo picture. Nice expression, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharpness, per others; also some CA. Daniel Case (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eberndorf Kirchplatz 1 Augustinerchorherrenstift S-Ansicht 31082017 0577.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2017 at 11:47:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 11:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Pleasant, nice whites and reds. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The picture's fine, technically. The lighting is pleasant and the red-blue contrast appealing. It's just that I'm not wowed. The shadow in the foreground is a bit disturbing and the whole square appears overly cluttered. Sorry. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose With Martin.--Jebulon (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Martin. The tree at left and the shadow do not add to the composition. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Martin; there's nothing really wrong with the quality, but the light just doesn' provide much wow.--Peulle (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Martin. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brandner Gletscherrandsee mit Schesaplana.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2017 at 12:34:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria
Info Glacial lake near the Brandner Glacier and the Schesaplana in Austria. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Beautiful picture! --Schaea (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC) Not eligible to vote: too few edits --A.Savin 13:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely scenery, good light, good capture. --Peulle (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the texture on the snow and the guy you can see standing on the rock outcrop at full-res. Daniel Case (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support good quality. Charles (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ebenthal Radsberg Winterlandschaft Weidezaun Pfahl 13022010 1655.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2017 at 12:01:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very serene. PumpkinSky talk 15:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per PumpkinSky. This didn't look like much to me as a thumbnail, but at full page and full size, I'm convinced. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 07:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Maybe I reconsider it if it is cropped at the bottom - too much snow out of focus there --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan, and - pace Uoaei1 - I actually like the bottom part --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support An image like this works as well in the summer as images of aquamarine tropical seas and the pale beaches around them do in the winter. More often than we realize, winter rewards a minimalist approach. Daniel Case (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info Wich snow depth is there? --Neptuul (talk) 07:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was about one foot and 5 inches deep and pretty below the freezing point. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support The fog in the distance is what makes this work. I second Neptuul's curiosity, are we looking at a telephone pole or part of an electric fence? :) --cart-Talk 08:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It`s just part of an electric fence, but without electricity during the winter months. ;-) -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Frauenstein Obermühlbach 70 Pfarrkirche hl Georg NO-Ansicht 21082017 5392.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2017 at 09:27:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Austria
Info created & uploaded by User:Johann Jaritz - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - There are a couple of close crops in this composition, though not of the church. I think they work well in this view, which is not a huge panorama but still has an impressive rise in the background. I think this photo is gorgeous and a feast for the eyes; what about you? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Ikan Kekek: I felt insecure about this photo, whether to nominate it or not. You described the potential issues of this image above. Anyway, I thank you very much for nominating it. So let´s see, if anyone gives it a chance. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! It looks like people are indeed giving this photo a chance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think it's lovely. The close crops don't concern me because they're not of the main subject. PumpkinSky talk 10:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's how I feel, too. If the church were this closely cropped, the lovely background would have been lost. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 12:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 08:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes. Something happens here.--Jebulon (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Not perfect, but works well enough as a photograph of the church. Daniel Case (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vitoria - Casco Viejo - Rampa mecánica 03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2017 at 09:18:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created & uploaded by User:Basotxerri - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'll say at the outset that I find this a claustrophobic, vertiginous picture. However, in this case, I believe that's not a negative at all, but a product of the architecture itself, which is fascinating and very vividly represented, in my opinion. (P.S. If anyone would like to refine the category, please do so at will with my thanks.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you very much for nominating this, Ikan!! I think, architecture is better thank some object category for this ramp, isn't it? --Basotxerri (talk) 11:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. Nothing whatsoever against industrial design, but I think this is of a broader scope than that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I bow down to Ikan Kekek. Each of his words has weight and gives a serious review. Bravo! Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I think the top could be cropped down a bit without doing any damage to the featurability of this image. Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per...Johann.--Jebulon (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice lattice of shadows. --cart-Talk 08:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2016.07.12.-16-Flemhuder See Quarnbek--Blutrote Heidelibelle-Maennchen.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2017 at 15:36:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Libellulidae (Skimmers)
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support good sharpness and detail. HalfGig talk 00:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sputniktilt (talk) 11:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment are you sure this is a male? Charles (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Info Yes, it is a young (immatures) male. --Hockei (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:James Leg.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2017 at 16:10:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Gene-K - uploaded by Gene-K - nominated by Gene-K -- Julien (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Julien (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This could have been a good and intense photo of a musician but the guy lurking behind the singer's ~~left~~ right shoulder like some Ghost of Christmas Future ruins the scene. Sorry. --cart-Talk 19:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cart, that's his right shoulder (viewer's left side of photo); plus it looks like he's swallowing his microphone, which in addition covers up 40% of his face. PumpkinSky talk 20:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arrgh! My bad, thanks for correcting me. --cart-Talk 20:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I agree with Cart and PumpkinSky; the man in the background gives the picture an eerie feeling, and the microphone is covering up a large portion of the singer's face. --Schaea (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC) Not eligible to vote: too few edits --A.Savin 13:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per cart and PS. Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rammstein aux Arènes de Nîmes 13 juillet 2017 22.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2017 at 16:19:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Gene-K - uploaded by Gene-K - nominated by Gene-K -- Julien (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Julien (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not with the hands in the foreground. Yann (talk) 16:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann plus the cut fireworks from the wings is not good either. --cart-Talk 19:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Yann and Cart. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Cayambe (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The hands don't fit. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 17:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:National Gallery at dusk, Canberra ACT.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2017 at 12:31:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Blue hour shot of the National Gallery of Australia
Info All by me -- Thennicke (talk) 12:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 12:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 13:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In full view it looks overprocessed --A.Savin 13:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. This is a well-composed shot of a beautiful building, but a little too unsharp and noisy in my opinion. Taking the picture almost an hour and a half after sunset (at the end of astronomical twilight) means there's basically no light left, and you have to scramble by using a large aperture and jacking up the shadow recovery, and it shows. Shooting this late is only really necessary for astrophotography; for all other subjects, it is does not use all the light possible for a blue hour shot and so does not represent our best work IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the feedback (and thank you for the compliments), I have images of the same subject in roughly 10-minute intervals all the way back to sunset. I chose this one because of the compositional importance of the interior lights. I wanted the atrium and its surrounds to be lit up, which requires minimal light. -- Thennicke (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support this isn't QI (noise,sharp etc...here have Feature pic very noisy in the past!),composition is very good....maybe the colours aren't "Exquisite" but i find that this can represent our best work here --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not really enjoying the colours, nor the weird brightness in the sky above the building. -- Colin (talk) 11:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lighting is odd all over. HalfGig talk 20:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose largely per King; the lighting sort of makes it look like a Thomas Kinkade painting. I would add to his critique the weird halo over the building on the right (maybe it's some light source behind it but as it is I can't tell) and the posterization on the inside of the concrete feature just outside the window. Daniel Case (talk) 03:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pinus taeda 29 NBG LR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2017 at 11:10:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order_:_Pinales
All by me. Pinus taeda bark in the Colonial Garden at Norfolk Botanical Garden. PumpkinSky talk 11:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 11:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well structured bark. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing color and detail. Artistic composition, well framed. Montanabw (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spurzem (talk) 07:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - though I would like, please, to see an indication of scale in the description. Are we looking at an area, say, 2", 6" or 12" across? Andy Mabbett (talk) 10:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment About 4-5" both directions. Added to file info. PumpkinSky talk 10:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Low on the wow factor for me but we are lacking FP bark photos. Good detail and the green lichen adds some detail. However, I wouldn't recommend making a habit of nominating bark at FP, as it isn't that interesting unless you are into bark. -- Colin (talk) 11:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"... it isn't that interesting unless you are into bark." Colin ... such dry humor! I didn't know you had it in you. This is the first time I've ever LOLed at something you said. Daniel Case (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Daniel Case, Colin, Cart Actually, I am into bark, from a visual and photographic stance. The patterns and textures can be fascinating. They have the added benefit of not moving, which is a problem with animals and wind-blown plants. PumpkinSky talk 19:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Interesting but not a FP IMO--Ermell (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I basically agree with Ermell. Definitely interesting to look at, but not a great composition, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting, great detail, and composition. HalfGig talk 20:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think bark photos are especially boring. In many ways they actually resemble some of the satellite photos we see here of Earth and other stellar bodies. In the right light and angle they are very cool. Imagine a stacked macro of one of the "trenches" in these structures. --cart-Talk 08:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I completely agree with Cart on this. Bark photos are fascinating with the added benefit of being excellent photography practice. PumpkinSky talk 09:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand any subject can look good with the right light/angle/composition. :-) --cart-Talk 10:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it's worth, I agree that bark photos can be interesting and good compositions, and I previously supported some nominations of bark photos that not enough other people considered featurable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I love the texture. It almost looks like it could be a satellite photo of surface features on some other planet. Daniel Case (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Church of Saints Clement and Panteleimon (Ohrid).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2017 at 20:53:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Macedonia
Info Church of Saints Clement and Panteleimon (Ohrid) by night. My shot. --Mile (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 21:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As always, I regret the star trails at full (pretty large) size, but the church is really sharp and beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 14:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Saisumanth532 (talk) 09:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--fedaro (talk) 12:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 22:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kizhi 06-2017 img19 Cape Navolok bay.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2017 at 16:09:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Russia
Info Bay of Lake Onega at Kizhi Island, Karelia, Russia. All by A.Savin --A.Savin 16:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 16:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exquisite light and colors. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ezarateesteban 22:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose i don't know if light and colors are special but for the rest a normal pic of a part of a lake. This is the best of commons? I don't beleive... --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't know if light and colors are special", LOL. Either they are special, or they are not. Your intellectual skills are impressive over and over again. -- A.Savin 23:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
this makes your culture understand .... what does the intellect have with a personal impression. Anyway, it's a free country and I say what I like ....LOL --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your intellectual skills are impressive over and over again. Please Aleksandr, no need to trigger people. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 21:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Allover stunning composition and per KoH. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive mood --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice reflection, but the composition isn't adding up to me, and I disagree that the image is singular enough to feature the photo in spite of that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan Kekek. --Karelj (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 22:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Red Flower 2017.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2017 at 13:00:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Ranunculales#Papaveraceae
Info All by me --NY onja Christian (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support the blurred clothespins captivated me than the flower in itself -- NY onja Christian (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry but this composition doesn't make any sense to me, cut leaves and a blurry clothespin, there are also posterized parts on the flower. --cart-Talk 19:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Exactly per cart, sorry. --Cayambe (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Plus you need to identify the species of plants and animals that are the main subject of a FPC. PumpkinSky talk 22:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 22:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:On Yer Bike (geograph 5492169).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2017 at 00:48:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info Transferred from Geograph.org - uploaded by Kong of Lasers - nominated by Kong of Lasers -- Talk to Kong of Lasers 00:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- Talk to Kong of Lasers 00:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed sky. --Nikhil B (talk) 04:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cute but does not stand out from background enough. Daniel Case (talk) 05:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Nikhil B, and also because a photo this small would have to be even better to be outstanding. I enjoy this photo a lot, but I don't really understand the argument that this is one of the very best photos on Commons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Talk to Kong of Lasers 22:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Citernes de La Malga 29.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2017 at 08:41:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info created by -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC) - uploaded by -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC) - nominated by IssamBarhoumi -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Interesting though complex motif (Is it a group portrait? A picture of big pipes? A picture with a church in the background?), but very small and not very sharp. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite small, appears downsampled.--Peulle (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- dear Ikan Kekek and Peulle have a look now I sharpened it and with better resolution : they are not pipes they are Tanks collecting water coming from a spring far from there 132 Km people are not taking a group photo but they are assisting to an open air seminar about history of Carthage there the lecturer was in the left side of the photo --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose On top of the unsharpness (and the off-color sky) there is confusion about what the subject of the image is supposed to be: the people, the tanks behind them, or the building in the background. Daniel Case (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Bad quality, unsharp. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 00:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- - Hi everybody thanks for your pieces of advice ... I ll do better next photo --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 09:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nominationIssamBarhoumi (talk) 09:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Karababa castle, structure, sea, Euboea, Chalkida, Greece.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2017 at 17:26:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

I withdraw my nomination

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Karababa castle over Chalkida, the sea, the island of Euboea, the clouds. Greece.-- Jebulon (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sort of busy, and while the building is sharp the trees aren't. Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Some small parts of trees, yes. Can you imagine some wind at the top of a hill ? In that case, trees move, not walls, except during hurricanes...--Jebulon (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Normal turist pic for me --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true, but so what if true ? This is the new current fashionable comment here, as I can see.--Jebulon (talk) 08:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's my opinion....is true? isn't true? boh....is my "fashionable" opinion --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 14:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Please Jebulon, don't take the LivioAndronico personally and LivioAndronico remember that this work is important for someone, because english is not your mother language you could use just "not wow" --The Photographer 23:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Photographer I think is very simple to understand....mother language or not. And Jebulon do not take it on personal, I vote the photo not people, as do others. Sincerely, I'm really sorry if you think to me so childish to vote for for personal reasons --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 16:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --fedaro (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Don't like it. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 01:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It does look a bit commonplace; just a normal photo without the typical "wow factor". The light is fairly dull and the horizon is obscured by trees so you don't have the point of having the ruin in front of the town in the distance either.--Peulle (talk) 12:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Jebulon (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm sorry, this is not a "not featured" picture, this is a "withdrawn" candidate... I think this a different.--Jebulon (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Strawberry-2293337 960 720.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2017 at 04:17:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info Transferred from Pixabay.- nominated by Kong of Lasers -- Talk to Kong of Lasers 04:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Talk to Kong of Lasers 04:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, it is smaller than the minimum size of 2 megapixels. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: The size is fixed and no longer smaller than 2 megapixels. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 16:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination--Talk to Kong of Lasers 01:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kong of Lasers, if you want this nomination to stay open now that the size is ok, you need to strike your "withdraw". --cart-Talk 14:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Now the size is OK. Yann (talk) 10:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ PumpkinSky talk 11:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Changing my vote per Ikan and Cart. PumpkinSky talk 11:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This looks very much like a composite photo of a splash and a strawberry, since there are no reflections of the strawberry in the splash or the water drops. Anyone knows if this is the case? If so, I'm a little hesitant to vote for such a manipulated photo. --cart-Talk 14:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: If you look closer, you can see the color of the strawberry in the water next to it. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 16:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only where the splash has been made to match the strawberry. If this was for real, there should be small strawberries in every little water drop. Then there is also the water in front of the strawberry, It has in no way distorted the strawberry behind it. I have never seen and object through billowing water that was not distorted. Please compare with other splashing fruits such as File:Orange Strawberry.jpg or others at Category:Splashes. It is no doubt a cool photo, just not sure it belongs here. --cart-Talk 16:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (I've changed the category from "Plants" to "Food and drink"). I don't know about the rest of you, but I've never found myself in a dark room with some water and felt the need to drop fruit into it. This is the sort of image that is popular on stock photo sites but I can't see much educational value for it, other than as an example of the fad for "fruit splash" photos. Sites like Pixabay are more aimed to offering free stock photos, than educational photos, though there is overlap and plenty educational images too. -- Colin (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm loving this. :)--Peulle (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment CG? --Laitche (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per Colin and cart. Although if we do someday have an article along the lines "food in advertising photography", or (better yet, a wikibook on taking photos that might be used in ads ... Daniel Case ({{int:Talkpagelinktext}) 17:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Now that this photo is of sufficient size, I oppose it as an undeclared mashup of two or more photos, particularly as shown by the link Laitche gives above. I'm totally fine with stitching together multiple photos, but photoshopping one photo into another is not OK unless it's openly declared and not just presented as a cool thing without further explanation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per technical issues. I'm not opposed to having stock images like this one on Commons. Not at all. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. To me this is no different from File:Glühwendel brennt durch.jpg. Weak for the low resolution. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Based on the link provided by Laitche, and this DeviantArt link, I'd have to agree this image is a Photoshop composite of photos, or does not in fact even contain a real water splash or real strawberry. The artist's other works appear largely artificial, and it is possible that the source images from which their composite works are created are not theirs to begin with (though might be free images). @King of Hearts, Kong of Lasers, and Peulle: The rules are clear: "Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable". If the source images for this composite are not created by the artist, that raises further questions about it's legitimacy as a file on Commons. With File:Glühwendel brennt durch.jpg that KoH links to, the manipulation is described, though to be honest, I've never thought those exploding bulb photos had much EV either. An FP must be accurately described and IMO should also be clear about authorship of all its parts. -- Colin (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per discussions above. --cart-Talk 12:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Talk to Kong of Lasers 22:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:France 1643-A Half Louis d'Or.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2017 at 21:30:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Money & Seals
Info created by National Museum of American History, uploaded by Godot13, nominated by Yann (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 01:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spurzem (talk) 07:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 08:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Angelina Litvin 2015-10-05 (Unsplash 52R7t7x8CPI).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2017 at 09:00:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Angelina Litvin, uploaded by Fæ, nominated by Yann (talk) 09:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 09:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment File needs to be renamed since I doubt that this is what Angelina Litvin looks like. --cart-Talk 11:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. Can it be done after the vote is over? Regards, Yann (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, it would disrupt the templates too much doing it now. --cart-Talk 19:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too heavily compressed, leading to JPG artefacts and posterisation. The image looks like it has been upscaled, as there isn't much pixel-level detail. As a portrait, the eyes aren't well lit and the beard is lost somewhat in the light background. There's no EXIF, but I don't think the lens choice was best, as it appears to have been taken from close range, rather than the more flattened portrait one would expect from a telephoto. -- Colin (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Yann (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 07:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Poertschach Johannes-Brahms-Promenade Promenadenbad Rutschenturm 11092017 0785.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2017 at 06:30:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
I withdraw my nomination created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We have three FPs of this water slide, all taken by you:

While the lighting/sky is different in this one, I don't think it is at the level of those. For example, the first one above has the slide in dark like this, but has a lovely soft background and good reflection in the water. Here the subject is quite small in the frame as a result of the wide-angle lens. There is a lot of clutter to the right and left. The water reflection isn't as good and the foreground water not adding anything. The water also appears to have either chroma noise or colour moire. -- Colin (talk) 07:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I did not know it was not within the guidelines to nominate more than three images of one subject. Sorry! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Johann, it isn't against the guidelines at all. There is no rule like that. We're just judging "among our finest". You've set the bar for this subject, and I don't think this image approaches it. Others may disagree! -- Colin (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Colin The subject doesn`t allow a wide angle shot with all the clutter on the left. You are right. And your other arguments match as well. I see the "mistakes" I made, that`s why I withdrew. I think, it is the better way than to keep it nominated. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 07:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yellow Flower in San Diego.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2017 at 22:56:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info All by Kong of Lasers -- Talk to Kong of Lasers 22:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong support -- Talk to Kong of Lasers 22:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose You need to identify the species of plants and animals that are the main subject of a FPC. PumpkinSky talk 00:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PumpkinSky:

Done It is Helianthus niveus. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 00:39, 13 September 2017 (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: Insufficient quality --A.Savin 00:22, 13 September 2017 (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.

@A.Savin: How is this insufficient quality? --Talk to Kong of Lasers 04:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does not meet COM:IG by far. --A.Savin 11:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

strong Oppose There's no sharpness and the level of detail is not even QI, let alone "one of the best images on Commons" (FP).--Peulle (talk) 06:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. --Nikhil B (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 07:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Melnor Garden Hose Water Nozzle 5 LR.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2017 at 13:50:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
All by me. My attempt at being Cart-ish. PumpkinSky talk 13:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 13:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wrt composition, the standard response would be "boring, centred composition". The hose head is hanging limp, upside down, and at an angle where one has to tilt the head to read any of the writing. The background grass is quite a busy feature of the image, whereas a different position/angle could have had an out-of-focus garden that was much less distracting from the subject. I'm not going wow, which is what we need to take this above QI. If you think about how you might take a great photo of a garden hose spray, well... you'd turn it on! Backlight the water spray. Add a photogenic subject being sprayed or doing the spraying. Make me think of a sunny day enjoying the garden or children having fun. Search "hose spray" on any Flickr, istockphoto, etc, and you'll get the idea. -- Colin (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In addition to Colin's critique, the bluish ambient light leaves the picture overall too cool (this could be one of the few times when the "shade" WB setting might have helped). Daniel Case (talk) 02:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Daniel Case, I've uploaded a version with the "shade" setting. PumpkinSky talk 03:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow.--Peulle (talk) 06:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but you have missed one thing about the photos I take of objects. The photos are never about just the object but rather about how the light plays on or around the object or how they form a kind of repetitive pattern. For an object to stand out, it need exceptional light and there is no such present here. Colin is right about that this should definitely have been turned on etc. to make it interesting. This just hanging there and the "angle of the dangle" gives me rather inappropriate associations. --cart-Talk 08:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Clearly not going anywhere. PumpkinSky talk 09:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 07:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017.01.20.-83-Paradiski-La Plagne-Roche de Mio--Mont Blanc.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2017 at 11:19:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#France
Info Mont Blanc with little shadow. All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Neutral Heftiger Grauschleier. --Ralf Roleček 11:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I judge your vote as a revenge because of my deletion request. --Hockei (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nö, das ist wegen dem Grauschleier. Und dazu braucht man nichtmal einen kalibrierten Monitor, das ist im Histogramm deutlich erkennbar. Die Bearbeitung von Yann ist schon deutlich klarer aber wie bereits geschrieben müßte das am RAW gemacht werden. Ich würde es so vorschlagen aber ohne Rohdaten wird das Murks. --Ralf Roleček 13:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Quite sharp, seeing the distance it was taken (39 km according to Google Maps), but it would greatly benefit from some adjustments, i.e. File:Paradiski-La Plagne-Roche de Mio--Mont Blanc, edit.jpg, of course done from RAW. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Was this really taken from 39km?~~ Charles (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Why doubt? --Hockei (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looked too clear! Charles (talk) 10:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Info @Yann: I produced a new version. It's not quite the same like your version but I did my very best. I don't use gimp but RawTherapee so the functions are not equal. Also I cannot see every colour. I just can recognize that the sky is a bit different. For my eyes is it should be good. --Hockei (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Support~~ Yes, much better! Yann (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Color is wrong now. Yann (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Talk to Kong of Lasers 16:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful oppose and @Hockei: The color just doesn't match now, sorry. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 22:23, 11 September 2017

For the fact that the pinky version is taken back your current oppose reason due to the color seems not quite honest to me. --Hockei (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hockei: But still oppose per others. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 22:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry but a 5.88 MP of a snowy mountain top with arbitrary crop doesn't make FP. It's nice but then so are countless others. It isn't as though this is razor sharp or noiseless at 100%, and I think a bit cheeky for you to oppose File:Montes de Mezdi sëura Calfosch Dolomites.jpg for being soft, when it is equal in sharpness to this at 6MP. We have plenty sharp 24/36+ megapixel photos of landscapes, it would need to be exceptional to impress me at 5MP. -- Colin (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Quality is great, especially for 39 km pass. I could support if croped so, but not for downsizing ? --Mile (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bluish haze noted by Rolf and poor composition noted by Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should reload your browser after opening the file. That Colin said it has a poor composition I cannot read out of his text. For possible hidden bad phrases my English isn't good enough, has it? --Hockei (talk) 06:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hockei: It was inferred by "arbitrary crop" (willkürliche Ernte. I hope that noun is the right one ...) Daniel Case (talk) 05:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explanation. I translate this in willkürlicher Schnitt (Bildschnitt or Bildausschnitt). Willkürlich isn't the same like schlecht or armselig (poor). More like not well selected rather randomly. But it's not important. --Hockei (talk) 11:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Info I uploaded a new version with a bit changed white balance and some more pixels (7.7 MP) but not full resolution (max at GH5 12 MP in 16:9). This deletion request opened my eyes about wikimedia and some users restless. Some users do so as if the cc by-sa is like public domain. Photographers are just sucked out and then on the top of it they get a kick. I don't want to pull him in here but I totally agree with Pocos reasons. I decided I won't upload full resolution pictures no more even if the GH3 pictures only have max 12 or 16 MP (4:3). But my GH3 era is over in April 2017 and then comes my GH5 era. I'm not sure if I'll upload pictures from this camera to the wikimedia yet. It doesn't matter whether Colin or other users like it or not. Fact is that the pictures of Moroder almost all are too soft. Independently of the number of pixels. But he isn't willing to change his way so I have the right to say that. This isn't cheeky how colin said but just honest and true.

I won't withdraw the nomination of my picture but want your decision.

In spite of all I have to say thanks to all users they helped me to develop my skills in producing pictures from the raw photo (at last to Yann).

@Yann: I beg you to delete the copies of this picture because they are not needed no more. I hope it's possible in that short way. --Hockei (talk) 07:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that Moroder's pictures have a consistent problem with softness, the point remains that at 6MP your image and his image are comparable in sharpness. Yet you nominate yours downsampled to < 6MP and expect us to go wow -- which is the criteria for FP. If Moroder did the same, he'd get fewer complaints about softness also, but also more complaints about unimpressive detail/size. Neither then are "among our finest" technically. We are left then with whether the image is among our finest artistically, and here Jebulon sums things up -- this is nice but nothing special. As for the DR, well Jim does not represent the whole of Commons nor Wikimedia, and he could have handled that better, but he was technically correct. If you use CC BY-SA then you can't be overly precise about attribution placement. Several people spent considerable time helping you draft a better wording, which I think better represents Commons community than some clumsy admin. I don't see how downsizing to 6MP will make a bean of difference to whether your images are stolen on the internet, as many Web usages require much smaller than that, and 6MP is sufficient to print A4 professionally. This kind of downsizing because you don't want to be more generous, will not impress anyone at Commons FPC and is exactly the sort of downsizing that is discouraged. Especially so when we see you complaining about 36MP images being too soft. That's just not fair play. In my opinion, if you are a professional photographer then by all means keep them "All rights reserved" as it protects your assets from which you derive your income and pay the mortgage. But if this is a hobby then who are you helping by worrying about someone in China or USA stealing your photo? It only gives you an ulcer and you will be no richer if you keep them under copyright on some Flickr album instead. -- Colin (talk) 11:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colin: While I agree that this is not very sharp, you can't compare a picture taken from 39 km away, and one taken only from a few kilometers. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yann, I'm not aware there is a need to take the picture from 39km away, so that doesn't really help the case. The latest upload has turned the sky purple, so I don't know what is going on. The "finest on Commons" doesn't include pictures deliberately downsized so that Commons is a loser. If we all played that game, we'd all be judging 2MP images. -- Colin (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colin: I have withdrawn my vote, as the colors are wrong now. But why do you talk about a need? A picture is taken from a given place, that's all. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I take a picture of Big Ben from a poor or distant vantage point, then people may complain it isn't sharp, or the verticals perspective distortion is too much. But if I get a great location, that can make all the difference. That this image is ok from that distance is great, but doesn't itself justify FP. Thinking about it, Yann, I think the reason this image isn't popping out of the screen with wow is exactly because it was taken from so far away. The perspective compression that results creates a flat image almost like someone painted this mountain on a piece of card. We expect our mountains to be 3D. -- Colin (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose For me, nothing different nor better than the ton of pictures of mountains we already have...--Jebulon (talk) 08:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jebulon: Just an advice. Click on the reload button in your browser after you opened the file then you'll see the difference. If not you maybe have more colour blindness than me.

--Hockei (talk) 11:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hockei: . Advices are always good, thank you. Again, this is just (for me) another (very good, even not that sharp...) pictures of mountains, as we have already tons in our FP collection.--Jebulon (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Info @Yann and Kong of Lasers: For information I made another new version. Maybe you want to reconsider your support. --Hockei (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, not OK. Here the snow is pink. Either wrong white balance, or over color saturation. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Now your white snow in 4th option became red. I dont agree for downsizing. --Mile (talk) 06:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC) p.S. I could support just full version[reply]
Oppose per others. Impressive sight, not a fantastic composition, and the snow is pinkish. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is the snow in the third version from 06:38, 10. Sep. 2017 pink too? --Hockei (talk) 10:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want people to judge a different version, use that version. I judge whatever version you are currently nominating. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Info @Yann, Ikan Kekek, and PetarM: Reverted to version 06:38, 10. Sep. 2017. --Hockei (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Incredible. There is one user who acts like the spokesman of wikimedia with all his users. Sad is that it works. It reminds me inevitably of Piper of Hamelin. What was brought forth throughout this discussion confirms that I am right with what I have written above about wikimedia. --Hockei (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Michelsberg-Türme-1215108.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2017 at 07:59:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Towers of the former Benedictine Abbey of St. Michael in Bamberg

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info all by Ermell -- Ermell (talk) 07:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 07:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like the sense of upward motion in this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan plus the moon. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Talk to Kong of Lasers 16:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 16:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 11:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--fedaro (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support though sky is slightly noisy. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:Bombus lapidarius - Sonchus asper - Keila.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2017 at 16:33:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera
Info All by Ivar (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much processing on the flower. Charles (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Charlesjsharp: would you care to explaine, what kind of processing do you mean? Only processing here was cropping and some selective denoising-sharpening. (RAW file is uploaded here) --Ivar (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's the selective heavy denoising on the flower that I don't think works. Charles (talk) 08:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Charlesjsharp: The flower had only a little sharpening (and the background minor denoising). You are guessing wrong (and not the first time). --Ivar (talk) 11:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Very good composition, IMO. I don't need all of the flower to be super-sharp, because the feeling the photo transmits to me is of being suffused by the flower along with the bee. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The kind of picture that makes you happy. I love how the bumblebee really gets down with the pollen, immersing itself in it. --cart-Talk 08:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 04:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 23:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chess pawn.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2017 at 18:16:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Chess pawn.jpg

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Svklimkin - uploaded by Svklimkin - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a really inventive one --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Null EV. --The Photographer 02:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I find this photo fun, it's well executed, and educational value can simply be seeing someone's imagination realized and figuring out how they did it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Paun with crown ? --Mile (talk) 07:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question This is a very commen and free image from pixabay published under CC0 license. Can one change the license backdated? That might cause some problems as I believe--Ermell (talk) 08:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not well executed. Charles (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per The Photographer, sorry --A.Savin 13:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a real chess position, and the blurred pieces do not help. Sorry. Yann (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looked at the picture again. Saw the blurred pieces. Saw a pawn with a misplaced crown on it. Regretted my first decision, sorry. --It's Kong of Lazers 你好 22:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann. Looks just too cute. Daniel Case (talk) 04:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a nice idea, but unsure about EV. Also, more importantly, since this looked like a stock image I did a google image search and found it was used many times before it was uploaded here, making for a licensing issue. e.g. this one from January 2015 (there are others). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Rhododendrites, --cart-Talk 07:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Blurred parts looks too unpleasant. -- Pofka (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 10 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 23:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dzelzceļam Latvijā 155 (29898947651).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2017 at 15:30:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
Info created by Kārlis Dambrāns (Flikcr) - uploaded by Papuass - nominated by Papuass -- Papuass (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Papuass (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I do love the shapes and colors in this photo, it is still a bit from being valid as an FPC. First of all the description is not enough.This does not look like a "celebration event" to me, more like the inside of what I guess is a train of some kind (at first I thought it was from a submarine!). What kind of vehicle is this in, where in Latvia was the celebration and so on. Then there is also the fact that the photo looks tilted an in need of some perspective adjustment. Had the photo been of just the engine (or whatever), a tilt is ok but here we have a door and a man as well. --cart-Talk 18:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per cart's comments and the general unsharpness in the rear of the image. Daniel Case (talk) 03:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The engine is sharp, and that's the subject. Yann (talk) 10:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 23:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bridge on the River Kwai - floating market 4.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2017 at 02:44:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Thailand
Floating market at the Bridge on the River Kwai, Thailand. All by me. PumpkinSky talk 02:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 02:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is very good, but I want to know what's to the left. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ikan Kekek The river at this spot runs pretty much north-south. This photo was taken from the eastern side (where the tourist plaza is). The eastern bank of the river is on the left; just back from the bank is the tourist plaza. PumpkinSky talk 09:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks a lot. I guess what I really mean, though, is that while viewing this photo, I want to see what's further to the left on the platform. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ikan Kekek Ah, you're wanting more this sort of scene: File:Bridge on the River Kwai - floating market 5.JPG, but note the boat and rail of the River Kwai Bridge are in the way. Yes, this is the famous bridge from the book and movie, both of which were highly inaccurate, BTW. Maybe I can combine the two photos.PumpkinSky talk 23:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Compositionally, I'm liking that photo more than this one, and would consider voting for it, in spite of the blurry foliage in the foreground. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Ikan Kekek I could crop out the foliage and rail but it'd leave only a tiny bit of the riverbank in the lower left. PumpkinSky talk 23:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't know if that would improve the picture, overall. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I totally see your point; let me play around with the two images in PS and see what I can come up with. PumpkinSky talk 00:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Ikan Kekek Check the new version of the second photo ("5"). I cropped the bottom and right and IMHO this is better. PS is no help here in merging as the photos are too different. Right now you may get the cached older version and may have to click directly on the photo to get the new version. PumpkinSky talk 00:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I actually prefer the previous version, because this way, it looks like the boat was cropped haphazardly, whereas in the other one, you see the bridge. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Ikan Kekek OK, check the latest version of photo "5". If you like that one maybe I could do a set nomination or put it up as an alt.PumpkinSky talk 19:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I haven't decided yet. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My general statement to this discussion is the following: Once out there capturing photos, it is highly recommended to comprise more of a pleasant subject's environment. With photo editing it is never a problem to crop, but there is no chance to add more to a photo what is not there.
Generally spoken: for landscape photography a wide angle lens is in the majority of the cases more helpful than a normal or telephoto lens. For full frame sensor cameras (FX) the 20 mm wide angle lens is one of the best choices. It even offers more opportunities than a 24 mm lens. And not to forget about the larger DoF with wide angle lenses. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Measured support The colors and the unusual angle make it work for me. Daniel Case (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Daniel on the reasons. HalfGig talk 19:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not seeing an engaging composition here, just a tourist shot. Also the processing is overdone, with too much NR and strange pixel-level artefacts (oversharpening?). Btw, the file size is rather high. Have you been saving at maximum quality on Lightroom? Try one stop down (which is 90% -- there aren't actually 100 quality levels in Lightroom, only about 12 which corresponds to Photoshop) -- the quality is indistinguishable but big savings in filesize. -- Colin (talk) 11:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I didn't even use NR on this. The slider is as zero. PumpkinSky talk 11:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PumpkinSky (and also Colin), if I may: I see that this photo was taken in April, and if I remember correctly, that was before you learned about RAW. If this photo is just the original jpeg from the camera, the program in the camera has made an automatic NR when it converted the RAW file to the jpeg you extracted. Jpegs from the camera has built-in NR from the start, even if you don't touch the slider in LR afterwards. --cart-Talk 14:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cart Correct, this was taken before I learned about RAW. Thank you for the info. PumpkinSky talk 14:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably the reason. But even in a raw converter like Lightroom, there's always some NR going on. For example, the colour NR in Lightroom defaults to 25 (and is best kept there unless one has huge ISO values and little reason to go smaller), and the demosaicing process aims to minimise noise. You need to use one of the open source raw converters to see what a raw file looks like out-of-camera, and it is quite awful. -- Colin (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen unprocessed RAW and yes it's ugly. PumpkinSky talk 16:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose The pleasant colors and exotic buildings are definitely eye-catching here, however the quality is quite blurry when you zoom... Something wrong has been done when capturing/editing this. -- Pofka (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 09:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kiruna kyrka September 2017 04.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2017 at 14:45:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info Aerial view of Kiruna church in Kiruna, the northernmost town in Sweden. The church is one of Sweden's largest wooden buildings and was consecrated in 1913. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good way to show the shape of the unusual building, so big EV. -- Colin (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this taken from a plane or helicopter? I can't find any tall buildings nearby, or did you fit your camera in a drone? --cart-Talk 16:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Info The photo is taken from a helicopter. We spent a weekend in Kiruna (supported by Wikimedia Sweden) taking photos from land and air of the city before the demolition of the old town center. Soon Wikimedia Commons will have high resolution aerial photos of the entirely town and the surrounding mines.--ArildV (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a fantastic undertaking! It's not every day that a whole town gets moved because of a mine and I'm glad to hear they are taking the documenting seriously. --cart-Talk 18:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

W.carter, I really don't know about any possibility to attach a DSLR on a drone and take photos with it in flight. If yes, this probably would be quite a heavy drone, which needs special regulations (permission, pilot's license etc.) to launch it. --A.Savin 19:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A.Savin You are probably right about the permissions and such, I'm no expert. If you Google "drone for DSLR camera" (text and or photos) there are quite a lot of them so not outside the realm of possibility, knowing that users here come with all kinds of unknown skills. --cart-Talk 19:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway there's no commonly available product of this kind so far. --A.Savin 20:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --cart-Talk 18:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 11:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Small fact: This photo was just mentioned on Swedish National radio. --cart-Talk 13:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 21:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Maybe the light was a little dull on that Arctic early afternoon, but this is a solid picture and good documentation. There's something a little distracting at the right margin (the cut-off black structure), but I am moderately supporting this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Autumn colours are pleasant. --A.Savin 19:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've been going back and forth for a couple days and I consistently land on far more support then oppose. Sixflashphoto (talk) 23:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 09:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ruinas de Santa Mariña Dozo, Cambados, Pontevedra, España, 2015-09-23, DD 34.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2017 at 04:38:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Remains of the church of St Mariña Dozo, Cambados, Pontevedra, Spain. The gothic church was built in the 15th century over a former Romanesque church of the 12th century by order of María de Ulloa, mother of Alonso III Fonseca. In 1943 it was declared National Heritage Monument in Spain. All by me, Poc o² 04:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 04:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a great composition, but unfortunately the arch nearest to us is not in focus (and a bit overexposed). Charles (talk) 11:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Charles: I've reduced the highlights. Regarding the focus, well, probably it was not on the top of the first arch, but I still believe that sharpness is acceptable and at the same time I'm not sure whether that sharpness at that spot is paramount Poc o² 11:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it is, so I've not opposed the image, and reducing the highlights is good. 16:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC) Charles (talk) 08:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better now with the highlights fixed. --cart-Talk 16:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really interesting motif and very well photographed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love those truly flying buttresses! Daniel Case (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Those flying buttresses are very nice. --It's Kong of Lazers 你好 23:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support But are they flying buttresses? Charles (talk) 11:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ Top crop is too tight. HalfGig talk 20:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
HalfGig: Not anymore I've also improved the crop on both sides to have the full arches. Poc o² 02:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Support now. HalfGig talk 13:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is an interesting subject but photographically I don't think this is FP -- the mixed lighting and the messy graveyard base. Btw, Daniel, et al, those aren't buttresses, flying or otherwise. See this photo -- those are the main arches of the church body. -- Colin (talk) 11:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, you are correct. Daniel Case (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Colin. The idea of taking the pic in golden hour is perhaps right, but it has resulted in uneven lighting. Sorry --Nikhil B (talk) 09:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 09:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Oak tree in the middle of a pine forest.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2017 at 13:17:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An interesting composition with the pines in the background looking like some sort of rain but there is a lot of purple going on, especially on the pines. Could this be fixed? --cart-Talk 15:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting composition indeed, but the tree looks blurry to me. Camera movement, possibly? For an object standing still, I'd expect better focus and sharpness.--Peulle (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak support and @Peulle: Yeah, I see how the tree is blurry. --It's Kong of Lazers 你好 23:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 02:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good but unsharp.--Jebulon (talk) 09:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 21:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose As others already mentioned: interesting composition but unsharp... -- Pofka (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 18:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black Rhino grazing.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2017 at 03:10:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by Lucas Alexander, uploaded by Haha169, nominated by Yann (talk) 03:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 03:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a very sharp picture of an uncategorised rhino. Charles (talk) 06:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharpless --Mile (talk) 08:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I change my mind. Lets say, for books more than good, compo especially. --Mile (talk) 13:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unfocused, not even a QI.--Peulle (talk) 09:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Charlesjsharp, PetarM, and Peulle: It is quite sharp at 6 Mpx. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

strange that the largest size under the image doesn't take me to the 6MB version. Charles (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: I will withdraw oppose if you can get the 6MB version showing up when I click 5,472 × 3,648 pixels. Charles (talk)

@Charlesjsharp: Sorry, but it works OK for me, so I can't do anything about it. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Somehow OK, if not opening in full. VI probably, good compo is still there. --Mile (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Daniel Case and Charlesjsharp: I added the category. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)@Yann: Fine, but that was the lesser of the two issues Charles based his oppose on (see !vote below). Daniel Case (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Unfocused. -- Pofka (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment TBH, comments here are not fair. The image is good, and it is animal in the wild taken with a telelens, not a fixed object. This would certainly good enough for National Geographic, but not good enough for Commons? Regards, Yann (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vox populi suprema lex est. Yann (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kuching Sarawak Dewan-Undangan-Negeri-Sarawak-01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2017 at 17:23:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info The Sarawak State Legislative Assembly building (Dewan Undangan Negeri Sarawak) is the seat of en:Sarawak State Legislative Assembly, a part of the Legislature of Sarawak, Malaysia (the other being the Governor of Sarawak).

All by me -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Picturesque, but I'd like to see a less dull sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Somehow the cloudy sky works for me in this picture. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Can anything be done about the blue/yellow moiré on the nets on the river bank below the center of the building? --cart-Talk 08:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I removed it. Thanks for the hint. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --fedaro (talk) 10:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support because of overexposure on the roof. Could you correct that? Yann (talk) 10:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I carefully looked into that. Due to the curved metal roof, you cannot totally avoid reflections. This reflection fortunately isn't blown out but just very bright. However, it cannot be handled with local reduction of exposure or reduction of whites/highlights. It would entail an area substitution in PS to achieve a suitable result. Personally, I do not think, that it is worth to remove the bright part of the roof in favor for a photoshopped matte. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Karelj (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the dull light, but I'd love to see this in different light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate support While I, too, would like to see the building in stronger light, it is interesting enough by itself to make this featurable. Daniel Case (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support And the roof is fine -- metal reflects the sun and such specular highlights should be allowed to "over expose" as in reality they are many times brighter than can be captured or realised on the screen. -- Colin (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--fedaro (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Marina Beach in Chennai.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2017 at 17:18:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Black and white
Info created by Dey.sandip - uploaded by Dey.sandip - nominated by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but that perspective distortion is too heavy for me. Unfixable, IMO.--Peulle (talk) 07:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support One more hitchcockian picture... --Yann (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 10:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - What is in the cart, and why is it leaning to the right, with its wheels out of alignment? I think that's what Peulle was talking about, and if there's a satisfactory explanation for it, I want to hear it. Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The cart is leaning due to the perspective distortion which also explains why the people are leaning in unnatural ways. I agree with Peulle that this is too much for an FP. I'm waiting to see if this is fixed before I vote. --cart-Talk 11:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perspective distortion due to use of a wide lens from a low position. The low angle was required to include more of sky and less of ground. The distortion was part of the composition, the whole point of which was to capture a sense of the place. Trying to fix the perspective will destroy the aesthetics of the image and I am not keen on doing that. It's a image donated to Commons, so people are free to fix things/create derivatives, but I would not like to be involved in such things -- Dey.sandip (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Perspective distortion is too disturbing to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The perspective distortion is deliberate and this is not an architectural shot, so who cares? Artistic license. -- Thennicke (talk) 02:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Nikhil B (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't mind the distortion of the cart but the leaning people are too much. I also think the photo lacks an overall wow. Sorry. --cart-Talk 08:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 10:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposes. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great wow for me. Maybe would be even better after removing half-pigeons on the borders. --- [Tycho] ^talk 14:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An interesting picture but, per cart and others, serious perspective problems. Daniel Case (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support perspective is ok. --Ralf Roleček 11:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. -- Colin (talk) 11:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment TBH, comments above the perspective are quite out of place. IMO, the very wide angle adds to the mood. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm quite surprised that so many reviewers think that normal perspective is a flaw... --- [Tycho] ^talk 17:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per cart. Leaning people is the best example how distorted this picture is. It undoubtedly has some kind of scary wow in it, though. -- Pofka (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Montmorency waterfall, Québec, Québec.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2017 at 18:46:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info All by -- The Photographer 18:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I love the sensation of looking out on a big panorama almost from within the waterfall. Really well done, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A different view of a waterfall. But could we have a geotag? Daniel Case (talk) 05:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 09:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for the moment. Great motif and I see FP-potential. But I see two technical obstacles: The trees on the verry left side are obviously unsharp. The horizon is slightly bulged to the middle. I hope vou can fix that. --Milseburg (talk) 11:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well done. --Milseburg (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support missing the photographer support too ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The unsharp bit seems to be either a bad frame or poor stitching overlap. The right side is slightly leaning down, causing the horizon to be not level and the poles to not be straight - perhaps some vertical control points can bring things back. There's a stitching error in the wires that cross the river too. -- Colin (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~{o}For reasons above~~. If the nominator were the author, I would have said that this should have been checked before nomination...--Jebulon (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)][reply]

Thanks Jebulon, I will try pay more atention. --The Photographer 23:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Too many stitching errors at the cables and the left side is unsharp for no reason.~~ The motive is fascinating.--Ermell (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thanks guys for the possitive feedback (negative votes or not), especially @Colin: and Milseburg. I uploaded another version in absolute full size and fixing the very left unsharp trees, the horizon (taking the Colin points control recomendation) and wires stitching problems. Please, tell me if it's ok for you. Thanks --The Photographer 20:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I've had a quick look and the unsharp area and stitching issue is improved and the poles are now vertical, but the horizon now looks to dip a bit in the middle. It isn't easy if the "horizon" varies with height and distance, but perhaps some in-between value would help. You may be able to drag the vertical centre point a little to compensate. -- Colin (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks @Colin: , please take another look and tell me what do you think. Btw I fixed severals dustspot overthere --The Photographer 23:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 19:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Looks good now. Colin (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 01:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Burg-Egloffstein-P1330237.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2017 at 06:43:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Illuminated castle Egloffstein in Franconian Switzterland

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info created by Ermell - uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Ermell -- Ermell (talk) 06:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 06:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Its interesting shot, but some noise problems by wires in the middle, distortion problem. I would use ISO 200, and some f/5-5.6 for better quality. --Mile (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you tell me how it`s possible to change these parameters after shooting :-). For me the slight distortion is not a problem. It underlines the height of the castle on the rocks. Thanks a lot for your effort and the new edition Mile but in this case I prefer my version.--Ermell (talk) 07:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are too many black areas, and the main subject is too small. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The dark areas are absolutely fine by me - it would've looked that way in person, and besides, it helps to frame the subject. I like the whole mood of this image, and it is a beautiful castle -- Thennicke (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't mind the darkness, it makes for an interesting composition that we don't see here very often, it also lends a bit of drama to the picture. --cart-Talk 08:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 14:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with KOH HalfGig talk 20:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose black parts at the bottom can probably be cropped out. - Benh (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 11:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much black, too much contrast. -- Colin (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Support - I think that in context, the dark parts are fine and the photo holds up as a good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not much done here by author. --Mile (talk) 07:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Slightly too black as others already mentioned, especially in the left side of the picture. -- Pofka (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 12:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old house in Łupków (Лупків), Poland.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2017 at 09:11:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 09:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 09:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 21:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the cottage is lovely and the weather is great but that plowed up parking space in front of it really disturbs the harmony especially since it goes right up to the house. --cart-Talk 08:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ironically, I like that plowed swath. It shows me that someone cares enough about this quaint-looking building to keep access to it open in the depths of winter. Daniel Case (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Beautiful and very good. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 11:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cart. -- Colin (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cart.--Jebulon (talk) 09:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I just don't find this photo interesting enough to feature, very sorry. Maybe a closer view of the house might be more interesting, but I'd have to see it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm just going to ignore Cart. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 00:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per cart. Parking place ruins this. Pity. -- Pofka (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 12:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bilbao - Parque Doña Casilda - Farola 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2017 at 20:41:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Spain
Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great clouds and tunnel effect! PumpkinSky talk 21:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice picture. --It's Kong of Lazers 你好 23:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, it is nice but not special enough for FP in my eyes. Also the shadow parts are too dark. --Hockei (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Hockei --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose also. -- -donald- (talk) 07:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --El Grafo (talk) 11:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Pofka (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 00:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sailing vessel Rembrandt van Rijn.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2017 at 15:31:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info created and uploaded by Vaido Otsar, nominated by Yann (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now this ship I can support. I really like that it is the scene more than the ship that provides the wow in this photo. It brings to mind names like Amundsen, Shackleton, etc. --cart-Talk 16:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree. Great picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ----Ermell (talk) 07:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 08:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 11:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Slight compression artifacts on the bow but the scene more than compensates.--Peulle (talk) 11:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Very good picture. Should be Speedy Promoted. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 00:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 01:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 00:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Santuario de Las Lajas, Ipiales, Colombia, 2015-07-21, DD 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2017 at 18:19:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info Las Lajas Sanctuary is a basilica church located in the southern Department of Nariño, municipality of Ipiales, Colombia. The place is a popular pilgrimage location since the apparition of the Virgin Mary in 1754. The first shrine was built by 1750 and was replaced by a bigger one in 1802 including a bridge over the canyon of the Guáitara River. The present temple, of Gothic Revival style, was built between 1916 and 1949. All by me, Poc o² 18:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 18:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pillars, towers etc should be straight. --Mile (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is hardly a post that is straight for real, please, rather take the houses as reference, they are IMHO straight Poc o² 03:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is a really big, interesting panorama, and it's quite interesting to move one's eye around the picture frame. I think it deserves a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Isnt that bad neither, agree. --Mile (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 14:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Almost fantastic. Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good view and light. It isn't as sharp as your usual at 100% (almost like shake rather than focus or lens issues) but since it is 44MP there's plenty room to downsize and sharpen it up) -- Colin (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Busy and chaotic landscape.--Jebulon (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 12:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Jebulon, sorry. --Harlock81 (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's like a Wimmelbild --Neptuul (talk) 07:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very regretful oppose Per Jebulon. Sorry. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 00:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Indeed too chaotic. My eyes immediately starts shaking and tries to find the main subject in it... But there is none... -- Pofka (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 00:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tugboat Boss discharging ballast water before departure.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2017 at 21:36:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info What may look like some post-processing is actually just the light from the low evening sun. :) The slanting light reveals every tiny bump in the hull and "paints" the boat in a totally different color. The boat is the same color as the one partially seen in the background. This light can also be seen in this photo taken a few minutes later. All by me, -- cart-Talk 21:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 21:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Great example of light use in a photo. PumpkinSky talk 21:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per PumpkinSky. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 14:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Love that raking light! Daniel Case (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 09:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 11:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, this should be speedy promoted. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 16:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see nothing of interesting --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course.--Jebulon (talk) 09:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--fedaro (talk) 12:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per LivioAndronico. --Karelj (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 00:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Monarch Butterfly on Silver Pearl Millet Plant.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2017 at 08:42:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.::

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info created by saisumanth532 - uploaded by saisumanth532 - nominated by Saisumanth532 -- Saisumanth532 (talk) 08:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saisumanth532 (talk) 08:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent, interesting composition -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sure, the composition is nice; but the butterflies are not in focus and the crop is too tight. Charles (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose crop, compo, light --Mile (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice, good composition -- Koushik Avula (talk) 08:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not nearly sharp enough for an FP butterfly photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Out of focus butterflies. -- Pofka (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent focus,Nice picture -- Sahil Ravuri (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 11:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Using the caliper new en.gif, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2017 at 21:48:27

Info The animation is showing an incorrect way to read calipers. The proper reading here should be 2.470 cm not 2.47 cm and a reading of calipers should also always state the error associated with the reading. In this case the proper measurement is 2.470 cm ± 0.005 cm. As it stands, this is a reading that did not use the full accuracy of the shown instrument. (Original nomination)
Delist -- Jason Quinn (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question As this is a FP on enwiki and not on Commons, wouldn't a delist discussion need to happen there? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent question! You are correct. This discussion can be closed. Apologies. Brain fart. Jason Quinn (talk) 06:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. --cart-Talk 19:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tako to ama retouched.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2017 at 21:20:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Katsushika Hokusai - uploaded by Deerstop - nominated by -- HeadPlug (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HeadPlug (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very interesting, but FP images on Commons can't be smaller than 2 megapixels. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ikan Kekek and all, just for the record, this is classic very well-known piece of Japanese erotic art. I've seen it many times. PumpkinSky talk 22:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My father collected Japanese art books, had quite a number by Hokusai, and maybe this image is in one I haven't looked at yet, in fact. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 19:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colonial Garden gazebo 2 NBG LR.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2017 at 10:06:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#United_States
Gazebo in the Colonial Garden at Norfolk Botanical Garden. All by me. PumpkinSky talk 10:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 10:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, I don't like the dull light. I'm unsure whether I'd support this composition in warmer light, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality, but not interesting enough for FP, Sorry --A.Savin 21:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Per A.Savin.--Ermell (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough interesting subject for FP. -- Pofka (talk) 10:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pofka, Ermell, and A.Savin: I disagree about the subject not being good enough. Any subject can be a FP, see File:Hinge on blue dumpster.jpg. Apparently the lighting isn't good enough in this photo, but there's nothing wrong with the subject. PumpkinSky talk 10:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Clearly going nowhere. PumpkinSky talk 10:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 19:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Крст во Брајчино.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2017 at 08:22:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Наташа Величковска - uploaded by Наташа Величковска - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Hot" and unsharp daylight picture. Complete oppose due to such combination, even if that cross is a quite interesting detail. -- Pofka (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Pofka's first sentence. It strikes me that this is a portrait of the cross, with everything else of note blurred. I actually don't think the cross is itself interesting enough for such treatment; conversely, the background is interesting enough, much more interesting than the cross, but it's not only blurred but seems off, with seemingly oversaturated greens. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Pofka and Ikan. This looks a lot like an unedited raw file, but it also seems to have been worked on, which means I doubt very much it can be improved in any way. Daniel Case (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 19:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Викиекспедиција Железник 59.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2017 at 12:44:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by Petrovskyz - uploaded by Petrovskyz - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~PumpkinSky talk 16:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Sorry, but i have to change my vote. Did not notice the edges of the trees in the upper right of the photo Ermell noticed. PumpkinSky talk 23:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -The oversharpened right side and the strong mask edge at the trees are not FP quality for me.--Ermell (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Right side is not sharp enough, sadly. Great atmosphere though. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 05:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 19:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saheb Ettabaâ Mosque by night.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2017 at 12:39:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info created by IssamBarhoumi (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC) - uploaded by IssamBarhoumi (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC) - nominated by IssamBarhoumi -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I appreciate the effort you must have put into this. But ... there's just so much going around the mosque as to make it difficult for the building to really stand out from the background city, and even if that were not an issue the small image size has perhaps been what caused the severe posterization of the lights in front of the mosque, something we haven't seen in other people's 30-second exposures of buildings at night. Daniel Case (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Talk to Kong of Lasers 22:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear all Thank you I will do better in the next photo --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 09:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 09:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 19:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dome of Ferhadija Mosque (Banja Luka, Republika Srpska).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2017 at 08:26:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Bosnia and Herzegovina
Info Dome of Ferhadija Mosque (Banja Luka, Republika Srpska). My shot. -- Mile (talk) 08:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 08:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 08:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The overexposed parts are not even o.k. for QI and ruin the composition.--Ermell (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 17:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ermell. I agree that that degree of overexposure makes this otherwise beautiful picture not an FP. (Not OK for QI might be a step too far, but this isn't QIC.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ermell. Yann (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ermell. -- Pofka (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of the overexposed part -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Mile (talk) 07:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 20:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Панорама на Шлегово.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2017 at 08:20:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created by Petrovskyz - uploaded by Petrovskyz - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (ahem, cough) check the lower left corner ... --Peulle (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Cropped. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and the upper left corner as well. --cart-Talk 13:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Cropped. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Nice scene, but something about it doesn't ring right, like someone pushed a little too hard in processing. There's that line along the ridge ... perhaps oversharpening? And the colors ... maybe it's not the WB, but it does feel a little overbright, like the highlights were turned up a little too much? Daniel Case (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Too vibrant filter --The Photographer 01:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above --Mile (talk) 08:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 20:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

«»===File:Montes de Mezdi sëura Calfosch Dolomites.jpg, not featured=== Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2017 at 09:02:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Italy
Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Much too soft and dull. It's easy improvable. --Hockei (talk) 09:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the Dolomites. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 11:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral What Hockei and Johann Jaritz said. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 16:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition seems arbitrary crop. Technically per Hockei. I know this is a 36MP image but when I have to reduce it to <9MP to get the sort of sharpness I can achieve with a £75 all-plastic prime lens at 24MP, then there's something wrong. -- Colin (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It should be sharper. --Mile (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Hockei. Daniel Case (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Hockei. -- Pofka (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 09:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 20:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Friesach Geyersbergweg 24 Ruine Geiersberg Kapelle hl Anna und Umfassungsmauern 04092017 0615.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2017 at 08:53:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely! PumpkinSky talk 12:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course! --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit more trees than I'd like normally, but here they help accentuate the decentering of the subject. Daniel Case (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nice elements, but the composition doesn't really work, in my opinion. I would oppose, but considering that there are 9 supporting votes, I will not be the only one standing in the way of a likely feature by acclamation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Spotted fritillary (Melitaea didyma) underside Macedonia.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2017 at 11:43:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The hair above the eye is a bit blurred. But anyway OK for FP in my eyes. --Hockei (talk) 09:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--fedaro (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jinyun Heyang 2017.09.09 16-48-58.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2017 at 13:00:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created, uploaded & nominated by myself. -- Zhangzhugang (talk) 13:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zhangzhugang (talk) 13:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now this I really like. Different from the sort of pictures that usually get nominated from China, yet unmistakably Chinese, and all the more so I think since it appears to have been taken in the rain. Daniel Case (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Surprisingly good --A.Savin 19:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@A.Savin: Surprisingly good? --Talk to Kong of Lasers 22:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per Daniel above. --Yann (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good and something different, a bit grainy but what a mood! --cart-Talk 08:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I love the light, rain and bubbles on the river. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like a movie scene. --Laitche (talk) 09:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Movie scene indeed. -- Pofka (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Atsme 📞 23:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 23:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Spb 06-2017 img42 Krestovsky Stadium.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2017 at 13:03:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Russia
Info Krestovsky Stadium (2018 FIFA World Cup and UEFA Euro 2020 stadium) in Saint Petersburg, Russia. All by A.Savin --A.Savin 13:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 13:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 14:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 06:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lighting is rather uninteresting, but the scene is well captured. -- Colin (talk) 11:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Colin. Looks kind of like a space vehicle this way. Daniel Case (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 16:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel Case and Colin. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 17:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry but I agree with Jebulon. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 00:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ This is interesting --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I change my mind for Jebulon --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 14:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeNot centered, bad crop.--Jebulon (talk) 08:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--fedaro (talk) 12:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just curious: how can you agree with Jebulon, when they did not even explain what's actually wrong with the crop? --A.Savin 08:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit puzzled about the centred/crop criticism. The building may be a symmetrical structure but the surrounding land isn't. It is hard enough getting a perfect centre when photographing a church ceiling with a camera absolutely steady on a tripod and plenty time to adjust through the viewfinder. This was taken by a drone hovering in the air. Whereas a ceiling may contain a work-of-art that absolutely demands symmetry and crop to respect the geometric forms, this isn't a work of art but an interesting view of a building from above. -- Colin (talk) 09:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Neptuul (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jebulon. --Karelj (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 23:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Adam Thoroughgood House - South LR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2017 at 10:49:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#United_States
South view of the Adam Thoroughgood House, built circa 1719. This is a National Registered Historic Landmark. All by me. PumpkinSky talk 10:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 10:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like that almost 300 years old building. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Johann and the nice lighting and texture on the building. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Nice framing and perspective, good color balance. Montanabw (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The perspective correction that Johann has done has caused the left side to lean out. It may be that the image can't be well corrected, as there is a limit to what one can do if the building is photographed close-up. Other than that this is nice, though the crop is a bit too tight at the bottom. (Btw, I see this is a WLM nomination. I'm not sure what the rules are about joint-efforts. It may be that it needs to be your own (singular) work, but you might want to check with the local jury). -- Colin (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Colin: I'm glad you and the others like it. I've uncropped the bottom some, once it works through the cache, you should see about double distance from the bottom of the drain pipe to the bottom. I've asked the local jury about what you mentioned. PumpkinSky talk 20:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC) ... answer to the WLM question: "Typical touchups (crops, lighting, color adjustments, etc.) are fine" (if done by another Commons user). PumpkinSky talk 21:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Johann Jaritz: If you don't mind, can you take this new slightly extended version and see if you can fix the slight lean Colin is talking about? Danke sehr. PumpkinSky talk 20:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Colin: Johann has fixed the perspective. This should address your comments in full now. PumpkinSky talk 03:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Colin: @PumpkinSky: Hopefully the fixing of the perspective was well done. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Johann Jaritz: I think you did a fine job. Danke sehr. PumpkinSky talk 10:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @PumpkinSky: The best job was done by you, the photographer, that`s for sure! The editing was just done by LR. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 09:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question ~~Wanted to plus it, but see file, notation, there is stitching which is made badly. Bottom.~~ --Mile (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @PetarM: ARGH! I can't believe I did that! I uploaded the wrong version of the file. I am trying to revert to the 02:43 version but it's giving me a "same version" error but it's not the same. Maybe it's a problem with the cache. I also cannot get to my computer with LR on it right now. Can you give me a few hours? Or maybe @Johann Jaritz: can fix it in the meantime. Thanks for finding that goof of mine. PumpkinSky talk 14:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Question @PetarM: I think the cache may have caught up now. Please see if it looks ok to you now. I don't see my "mistake" version anymore. PumpkinSky talk 14:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good now. --Mile (talk) 08:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Pofka (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - verrrry nice, especially with all the lines! Atsme 📞 23:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice shot. Ched (talk) 04:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support colours are lovely -- Thennicke (talk) 05:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 17:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Marius Romanus still standing.jpg, not featured[edit]

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

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by IssamBarhoumi (talk) 11:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC) - uploaded by IssamBarhoumi (talk) 11:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC) - nominated by IssamBarhoumi -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 11:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp; and that light trail at the left kind of detracts from the image, which is pretty statically composed to begin with. Daniel Case (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
dear Daniel Case for the light it is meant to be to shozw that we are in a crossroad there ... it is a planned photo and I went there at this momment to show you the fun about this mausoleum ... It still standing and the time flows and flows ... a Have to add that for sharpness I was in total Darkness I enlighten the mausoleum a bit to get a focus ... That is why I am nominatin it for FPs IssamBarhoumi 19:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – The monument is unfortunately not in sharp focus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Münster, Prinzipalmarkt, Nasenschild -- 2017 -- 2101.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2017 at 10:03:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 10:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info The background looks like disturbing, but it's part of the composition. It is a counterpart like young and old, near and far, fun and violence, harlekin and cages of anabaptism. This composition is only possible from a special point of view and only with a large focal length. --XRay ^talk 11:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 10:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm quite disturbed by that background, it's much too busy for me.--Peulle (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The background is a special counterpoint (young and old, near and far, fun and violence). You can see both only with this perspective. (BTW: That's why a focal length of 170 mm must be used.) --XRay ^talk 18:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Peulle and Daniel Case: I think there is an information missing. The background is a special part (counterpart) of the composition. Otherwise it would be just a sign. Please see my added information at the top too. Thank you. --XRay ^talk 12:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support imho the background is part of the composition --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. --XRay ^talk 11:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. What against the ~~packground~~ background? Perhaps it would be even better if the golden man would be a bit more right. But nevertheless the composition ist very good for me. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Spurzem: Packground? --Talk to Kong of Lasers 22:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kong of Lasers: Thank you! It seems impossible but obviously not. ;-) -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I see the thought behind this composition, but without knowledge about the cages in the church tower in the background one of the "counterpart" you speak of in the description above becomes lost and the composition looks just jumbled. I know of the cages only because of the photo I saw at QIC and went to read the WP article on them. The young/old is also lost since most folks would consider the sign in front just as old as the church. Sorry. --cart-Talk 08:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support because it's a good background. --Ralf Roleček 14:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good thought, but Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Пелистер 07.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2017 at 12:34:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Ice
Info created by Шпиц - uploaded by Шпиц - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Poetry.--Ermell (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great light and texture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 07:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nature's art. Atsme 📞 23:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kizhi 06-2017 img06 Oshevnev House.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2017 at 14:51:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Russia
Info Wooden architecture on Kizhi Island, Karelia, Russia. At the left: churches of Kizhi Pogost (World Heritage Site). At the right: farmhouse (Oshevnev House). In the foreground: fishing boat and fishing nets. All by --A.Savin 14:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 14:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Exotic (for me), but deformed.--Jebulon (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I keep wanting to turn the camera more to the right. That way the whole fishing net contraption would have been in the picture and the house would have been less distorted. Distorted, angular modern buildings I get but with such an old house it looks rather crazy. I understand if you wanted to keep that patch of water in the image, but it is of little consequence for the composition. --cart-Talk 15:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Count on some deformation when fisheye or wide zoom is used. That is normal.--Mile (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course that's true, but some of it could have been avoided by moving the camera a bit to the right and thereby placing the building more towards the center. --cart-Talk 20:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Very interesting but not quite adding up for me. I'd really like to see another photo of this motif, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --A.Savin 22:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 08:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Uttra Ganababhon, Rajbari entrance from front.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2017 at 07:39:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by শাহাদাত সায়েম - uploaded by শাহাদাত সায়েম - nominated by শাহাদাত সায়েম -- শাহাদাত সায়েম (talk) 07:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- শাহাদাত সায়েম (talk) 07:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose burnt sky and perspectives issues Ezarateesteban 13:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 08:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Conifer Garden 1 NBG LR.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2017 at 23:05:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order_:_Pinales
Conifer Garden at Norfolk Botanical Garden, All by me.-- PumpkinSky talk 23:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 23:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one I like --A.Savin 00:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But please identify the plants --A.Savin 00:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any attempt? --A.Savin 12:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given all the opposes, it's rather pointless now. I only know a couple by sight I'd have to go to the Botanical Garden to ID the rest. The light green one slightly right of center is an oriental spruce. PumpkinSky talk 13:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 00:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a QI for me, sorry. Such a scene is not uncommon for botanical gardens. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charming forest. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per King of ♥ ♦ ♣, --Shishir
Oppose Per others. -- -donald- (talk) 06:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per KoH. -- Colin (talk) 08:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 08:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Same: common scene. -- Pofka (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdraw my nomination Withdrawing this crappy photo. I think the "wow requirement", which isn't a requirement per the written rules, often does the FP community more harm than good. PumpkinSky talk 15:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - PumpkinSky, Commons:Image guidelines says "Featured pictures candidates should meet all the following requirements, must have a "wow factor"". Without this, and the core mission to select the "finest on Commons", then it is just QI. Technical adequate photos are extremely common, rather easy to achieve, and belong at QI. That doesn't make them "crappy" nor reduce their value to the project. -- Colin (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected on the requirement part, but stand by the rest of my statement. PumpkinSky talk 15:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PumpkinSky your "the FP community does more harm than good" comment is incredibly rude to your fellow reviewers, who are simply doing their job. All because we failed to sing the praises of a couple of your rather ordinary photos. While FPC is sometimes a game of roulette, it isn't a game to play with pretty much most of your uploads in the hope a few pass the grade. The response is no surprise at all. FP is not QI and is meant to be difficult and selective. -- Colin (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ColinI see no point to continue this. You're incredibly presumptuous and condescending of others. PumpkinSky talk 19:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I may: There's a very big distance between "crappy" and "not outstanding". But I suppose you'll find that incredibly presumptuous and condescending, too... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 08:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orca-2650649 960 720.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2017 at 22:53:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
InfoTransferred from Pixabay - uploaded by Kong of Lasers - nominated by Kong of Lasers -- Talk to Kong of Lasers 22:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- Talk to Kong of Lasers 22:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The head is out of focus and I don't like the object in the lower left corner --A.Savin 00:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I really don't like the blur in the lower left corner. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Remove the two corners and the very top. -- -donald- (talk) 06:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many distractions caught in the frame and not sharp. Also, KoL, you absolutely must credit the photographer, not "Pixabay", in your nomination. -- Colin (talk) 07:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin. -- KTC (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. -- Pofka (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thank you all. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 22:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 08:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FIle:Планината Козјак.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2017 at 17:39:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info all by me. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. Daniel Case (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, dark. -- Pofka (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 08:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Friesach Stadtgrabengasse 5 Dominikanerkloster mit Ordenskirche hl Nikolaus 04092017 0653.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2017 at 16:19:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
I withdraw my nomination created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gorgeous. PumpkinSky talk 23:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination There is too few interest in this photo, so I withdraw it. I am going to select another one, that might please more people. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 08:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gößweinstein-Burg-und-Basilika-P5224761.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2017 at 07:05:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View over Gößweinstein with pilgrimage chapel and castle.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Ermell - uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Ermell -- Ermell (talk) 07:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 07:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ermell colors arent real. --Mile (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per Mile, it looks a little on the warm side. Can something be done about this? Daniel Case (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Looks a bit green. -- Colin (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Changed the WB and hope it´s better now.--Ermell (talk) 07:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ermell: , not really, sorry...--Jebulon (talk) 09:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ermell i cant see any difference. Beside, i think your 1st version is best, just cut bellow some of that trees, and add Exposure 0,25 or 0,28. Then do that geo converting you did and that is it. --Mile (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is the latest version. Thanks for all your efforts.--Ermell (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not exceptional for me. Just a pleasant looking shot of a old town taken from a mountain/tower/window of a tall building. QI. -- Pofka (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Ermell (talk) 07:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 08:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old Donation Episcopal Church 2 LR.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2017 at 02:55:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#United_States
Old Donation Episcopal Church in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Founded in 1637 and rebuilt and remodeled several times since then. This is a National Registered Historic Landmark. All by me. -- PumpkinSky talk 02:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 02:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 08:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, good quality but nothing special. No wow. --Hockei (talk) 11:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, I agree with Hockei. Unfortunately, my feeling is that what surrounds the church doesn't create a good composition. Not your fault, but not outstanding, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Having taken quite a few pictures similar to this, I agree with Hockei. Also, that cloud at the top could be handled better. Daniel Case (talk) 03:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry to agree with opposers. Not a bad one, but not a FP, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 10:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. Simple QI. -- Pofka (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdraw my nomination Withdrawing this crappy photo. I think the "wow requirement", which isn't a requirement per the written rules, often does the FP community more harm than good. PumpkinSky talk 15:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected on the requirement part, but stand by the rest of my statement. PumpkinSky talk 15:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 08:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Цвети, улазак Христа у Јерусалим (Church fresco - Triumphal entry into Jerusalem, Bitola).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2017 at 08:00:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Church fresco - Triumphal entry into Jerusalem. My shot. -- Mile (talk) 08:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 08:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good - though I would like to have a more thorough description of this historic fresco, including what the text in it says.--Peulle (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Peulle: Agree; done with notation and in Description. --Mile (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question Just one question: FoP ?--Jebulon (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read more about the church. Well, momentally just in Serbian, Macedonian and Bulgarian language. Church is one of main, built 1872, second to Eparchial. So question is more, was it restored and when. Otherwise even smaller churches around got old frescos...welcome to Macedonia. --Mile (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- My feeling is: not restored, but completely new, in byzantine style. Something like at the pediment of Athens cathedral. The building is old enough, but not the fresco/mosaic. But I don't know.--Jebulon (talk) 10:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Sorry to the voters for wasting your time, since its might be FoP, and i cant be sure neither date of original creation. When and if i find out i will renominate. --Mile (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 08:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grafenstein Saager Filialkirche hl Anna Fresko Schutzmantelmadonna 12052015 3592.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2017 at 07:42:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media#Religion
I withdraw my nomination created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would crop white wall out. --Mile (talk) 08:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Done @PetarM: I followed your suggestion and cropped the white wall out. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support i think its much better now --Mile (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Could be a little sharper up top, though. Daniel Case (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I reverted my withdrawal, for though I am afraid there is a lack of interest in this image. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support and @Johann Jaritz: if you want to revert your withdraw, please ~~strike through~~ it. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 22:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 02:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The photo is technically good, but the fresco is really ugly, IMO. Not your fault, but it prevents me for a support... Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 09:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination As I highly estimate @Jebulon: 's opinion, I cannot but withdraw this image. I was wrong in my consideration of choosing this photo. Thank you very much. I will try to find a photo that might wow the community. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 08:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sandvik bay in Brofjorden.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2017 at 22:09:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Sweden
Info Not the kind of photo I normally do here but this is my favorite place to go when I need to wind down, so I thought I'd give it a try. When I came here this time, the rain was just moving away from the bay. All by me, -- cart-Talk 22:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 22:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The light orange/yellow clouds/reflection make this work. Very Serene. How many photos make up the panorama? PumpkinSky talk 01:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eight photos, just like it says in the panorama template on the file's page. --cart-Talk 07:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info Please look at the note - --Neptuul (talk) 06:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neptuul, not quite sure what that was, could have been something from the photomerge or just sheets of rain since it was departing that way. It's gone now, thank you for noticing that. :) Some things show up in better contrast in the wiki software than in Photoshop or Lightroom. --cart-Talk 07:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Large file and good composition but I found two slight stitching errors which should be solved without problems.See annotation.--Ermell (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I'll fix them tonight when I'm home again. Thanks for finding them. :) --cart-Talk 13:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Ermell. --cart-Talk 19:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No Wow...~~a lake. And distorted too...~~ sorry --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 17:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting. Just to put the record straight, it is not a lake but a horseshoe-formed bay in a fjord, so not deformed. The beach really is curved. I don't think that matters for your voting though, but the info may be relevant to others. :) --cart-Talk 17:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably i'm wrong, sorry --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support The small version on the nomination page doesn't do this one justice. It really needs to be viewed full screen and zoomed in to appreciate the many, many details that make for an compelling scene. There may be a little bit of posterization in the clouds at the top, just right of center, but if so it's pretty minor. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nikhil B (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Maybe a bit too dark. Not 100% sure but it is definitely more support than oppose. -- Pofka (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tilted - Benh (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benh, better now? Adjusted -0.3 deg using the reflections to align, otherwise please be more specific. --cart-Talk 18:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess u adjusted CCW (yes I meant CW tilted). Looks a bit better but still there in my view. And besides, the sky shows artefacts of wrong blending (not sure the exposure of the raw images were consistent). - Benh (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No wow, nothing extra... --Karelj (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of wow for me, also a bit grainy --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose posterization on sky, dull colors. I understand the main idea of the Author, but no WoW for me, sorry -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be sorry George, this image is already a goner. I'm just amused by how many users show up at the very last hours to make sure this doesn't get promoted. --cart-Talk 20:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 07:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maria Gail Kirche Flügelaltar 01.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2017 at 13:00:05
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info In the original voting (Original nomination) there have been suggestions to tighten the crop and to edit out some disturbing elements, e.g. the box on the left. Now here is the result. --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace -- Uoaei1 (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace of course, as I suggested it.--Jebulon (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Mile (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Cayambe (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think both of these should be FPs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace -- Daniel Case (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace -- Pofka (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Karelj (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 9 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. cart-Talk 08:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:A boat rests unused near the Acheloos river delta.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2017 at 18:51:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created & uploaded by Dimitrios Tzortzis - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think this is an interesting, rather striking composition, with a great mood, great light and reflections. What do you think? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ----Ermell (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 20:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exquisite. A little brighter would be better though. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gorgeous. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 07:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support although I think it could stand to be cropped in at the top and bottom to be more panoramic. Daniel Case (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes! I would leave it just how it is, but if it had to be cropped I would do it symmetrically. Sixflashphoto (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. But I wonder how they get out to it...Atsme 📞 23:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry to spoil the party, but the boat is too small, the foreground and part of the sky are not interesting. It would be much better with a closer composition, i.e. File:A boat rests unused near the Acheloos river delta (cropped).jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 07:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Friesach Kirchenruine Virgilienberg Apsis Maßwerkfenster 04092017 0732.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2017 at 19:06:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Austria
Info created & uploaded by User:Johann Jaritz - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I find this a very interesting photo, and in this case (keeping in mind that shadowed foregrounds are often objected to on FPC), I like the fact that the "interior" of the ruin is partly in shadow and that we look out through the windows at a bright view. I think of it as poetic. And the parts in shadow are quite bright enough to see clearly. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Karelj (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 20:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really very interesting --A.Savin 22:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oh yes! I really like this. Sixflashphoto (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 05:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 07:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Compo is good. --Mile (talk) 08:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive! --Milseburg (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - lovely. Atsme 📞 23:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 22:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 07:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Große Linde bei Teuchatz P1320563-PS.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2017 at 21:35:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Tiliaceae
Info created by Ermell - uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Ermell -- Ermell (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful starkness. PumpkinSky talk 00:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would hang this in my room. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per KoH. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 05:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Poetic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 07:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fairy tale mood. --Laitche (talk) 07:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good, although I would like some fog-based categories.--Peulle (talk) 07:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done I could only find one, however. Daniel Case (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice and moody. Daniel Case (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why the suggested category is 'Plant'? -- Dey.sandip (talk) 11:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Because someone planted it? More likely that it's considered a large woody perennial plant. Atsme 📞 23:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Atsme, Dey.sandip, and Ermell: This is a Linden tree, which is generally translated into English as "lime" (believed to be a corruption of "lind" and not related to the fruit) by Europeans and is generally called basswood by Americans. This is in the family Malvaceae/Tiliaceae (depening on who you want to listen to), genus tilia, order Malvales. There is an FP section for Plants#Family_:_Tiliaceae, and I've changed the FPC category to reflect that. Ermell, I hope that's okay, if not feel free to change that. I think Dey may have been asking why the FPC category wasn't more specific. PumpkinSky talk 12:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @PumpkinSky: Thank you for your efforts. You know more about this subject.--Ermell (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atsme 📞 23:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 05:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 17:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why hasn't this been speedy promoted? --Talk to Kong of Lasers 00:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kong of Lasers: At FPC there is no general "speedy promotion" or "speedy decline", there is only the "5th day rule". Please read more about that at Commons:Featured picture candidates#General rules paragraph #8. --cart-Talk 19:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 07:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chemical Challenger (ship, 2015) Sète cf01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2017 at 06:02:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info created and uploaded by Christian Ferrer - nominated by Ivar (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As always I love dark stormy clouds, but here I just find the left and right crops unsettling (too tight on the right and too many distractions on the left). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose oversaturated --Mile (talk) 06:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it more natural. --Mile (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support If this photo had been made by someone else than Christian, I would have yelled "oversaturated" but I know he isn't prone to such exaggerations. When a cloudbank comes or departs over the sea, you can get some pretty extreme light effects. Most of the time they are very difficult to catch in a photo so well done. --cart-Talk 08:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks you Ivar, I felt very lucky of this light, I came out of my job and the sky was clear, the time that I come to home, take my camera and go near the harbour, and the sun was hidden. I was terribly disappointed, and I was going to return at home but the weather has been generous, and the sun just lit some parts of the harbour with intermittent causing a dramatic effect with this contrast. Thank you cart, but you maybe right, while I always try to obtain a good visual effect I sometimes go a bit far when processing, is it too much? Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) I think that for the sake of the photo and for those not used to extreme harbor lights, you could turn it down a bit. It will not harm the photo. Sometimes I have to do a bit of desaturating of original photos when photographing sea, sky and clouds here since no one would believe me otherwise. ;-) --cart-Talk 11:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PetarM and W.carter: I decreased the saturation a bit, thanks you. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still wow-y. :) --cart-Talk 11:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --You don`t get light situations like this very often. This is an excellent shot.--Ermell (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 22:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Carter. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Nikhil B (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow. --El Grafo (talk) 11:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support love the contrast — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Powerful contrast! -- Pofka (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As a thumbnail, I didn't really get it, but this is very well done. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wow, has a 3-D feel to it. Atsme 📞 23:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing light! --Laitche (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot, Christian -- Thennicke (talk) 11:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 14:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cirsium eriophorum flower head (Kozara National Park, Republika Srpska) v2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2017 at 07:59:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Family : Asteraceae (Sunflowers)
Info Cirsium eriophorum flower head (Kozara National Park, Republika Srpska). My shot. -- Mile (talk) 07:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 07:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I really like this! As pretty often happens, Commons search is hanging when I try to search this category for VIs, but this looks excellent for VIC, too, and I can't imagine there would be a better image in this scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ikan Kekek i already put for VI other image, similar, for this group Cirsium eriophorum close-up. --Mile (talk) 10:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I remember that picture. I didn't realize it was the same species. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The other one has a flower head forming. PumpkinSky talk 11:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- -donald- (talk) 11:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. PumpkinSky talk 11:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now this is how a flower closeup should look! Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - awesome close-up! Atsme 📞 23:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 17:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 14:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Asterales#Family : Asteraceae (Sunflowers)

File:Bonn, Hotel -Marriot- -- 2017 -- 2142 (bw).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2017 at 15:18:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 15:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 15:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The clouds are a bit disturbing but I feel something different. --Laitche (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just too uninteresting subject. Simply hate such block style, emotionally dead buildings. -- Pofka (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. --Karelj (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see them as emotionally dead buildings. This is a good example of modern art in architecture done in B&W. Sixflashphoto (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 07:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Layers of sedimentary rock in Makhtesh Ramon (50754).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2017 at 03:01:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info all by me — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support for pure fascination. I might want a bit more sky, but so what? Artist's decision. Very slight grain is not an issue, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 09:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 12:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice color and texture. Daniel Case (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very interesting layers of rocks but not a very unusual picture. No FP at all to me.--Ermell (talk) 08:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have just scrolled through the pictures of this category and quickly realized: they look better than this. This is just some kind of fragment of rock/mountain and not so impressive as other pictures in this category which are wide panoramas, stunning waterfalls, taken at perfect timing and so on. This is just way too easy to capture compared to other pictures in this category. So, I believe, this one doesn't belong with them. -- Pofka (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Pofka. --Karelj (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The relatively short aspect ratio detracts from the grandeur of the scene. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 08:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:2015.07.04.-06-Eilenburg Ost--Gemeiner Schwefelporling.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2017 at 14:39:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family : Polyporaceae
Info New produced. All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A QI of a fungus on a tree, I don't doubt, but not special enough for FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The direction of light is a bit boring for me.--Peulle (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel, --cart-Talk 17:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I guess I agree with you all, but the fungus is very interesting. Maybe from a different angle or in different light it might be an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. -- Pofka (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hockei (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blue eye, by Amanda Dalbjörn, 2017 (Unsplash).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2017 at 13:40:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Amanda Dalbjörn, uploaded by Fæ, nominated by Yann (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but too noisy. I don't understand what there is a reason for this. --Hockei (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, somewhat per Hockei. The composition doesn't really make sense to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise aside, the 3/4 window reflection in the eye is not the best way to light such a subject. Actually being outside would have been better. I also suspect the blue in the eye is oversaturated. --cart-Talk 07:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~It is not necessary to be so patronising. She is not the only one of us with a bit to learn.~~ Charles (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not my intention at all, apologies if you think it sounded that way. Sentence is removed. --cart-Talk 16:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose First, the unsharp brow is distracting; second, a composition like this makes me think of sci-fi paperback covers where we see that the eye belongs to an android, a cyborg or something like that. Since it apparently doesn't here, I feel let down by the payoff I didn't get (Basically, when you do this there should be something interesting about the eye itself to draw us in). Daniel Case (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good composition and light, but there's too much noise.--Peulle (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel Case. -- Pofka (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the comments here are really meaningful, but well... Yann (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Yann (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lévis city, Québec 07.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2017 at 15:23:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Canada
Info All by -- The Photographer 15:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Stitching error in the wood panels. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can you point it out in a note? What might look like an error to you, if it's what I think it is, may be a staggering of the edges of the planks. Daniel Case (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The Photographer, did you do any stitching/merging in PS, etc? It's a bit unusual as you'd think the second plank would be a trip hazard and the planks seem to curve and they go to the right. I do like the photo though.PumpkinSky talk 02:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I need fix the problems with this image, thanks for the reviews guys, yes I think that there is a mergin problem because the wood can't be curved --The Photographer 10:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 09:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:Vilnius Cathedral Chapel of Saint Casimir, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2017 at 16:48:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Pofka -- Pofka (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Very strange perspective, and is that rainbowy area on the upper left a lens flare? I don't think I'll be supporting this one, and I may oppose. Give me a counterargument, please. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: Not really sure about that rainbowy area. It might also be due to marble as there also are other shining areas (f.e. near right lamp). There is no other way to capture the whole chapel as it is one of the Vilnius Cathedral side rooms and it has quite small gates, so centered image is not possible here. -- Pofka (talk) 07:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That seems to me like a good argument for VIC, but not for supporting a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No, such a distorted image may be interesting but not excellent. That's my opinion. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The distortion is one thing but there's also that light disturbance in the upper left section.--Peulle (talk) 07:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a lens flare, difficult to avoid with strong light coming in through the window. And as Pofka said, it's a very small room so unfortunately this angle of view is needed to see enough of it. I can understand the criticisms though, it is not ideal. But the compromises are necessary in this case. Diliff (talk) 10:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I understand that compromises were necessary, but in this case I do think they mean the picture could not be featurable. Daniel Case (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 07:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:360° Panorama vom Hochgolling.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2017 at 13:45:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info Panoramic view from the summit of the Hochgolling, the highest mountain of the Lower Tauern in Austria. - All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well done --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Uoaei1-- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Uoaeil. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support good shot --Mile (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support very very nice — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Augenweide.--Ermell (talk) 07:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 10:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - absolutely. Atsme 📞 22:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. I was against having the people to start with, but I think they're OK. Charles (talk) 09:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 15:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 07:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ship in the SF Bay fog (40406).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2017 at 02:34:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info all by me. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was on a ferry on the San Francisco Bay recently and saw this big ship passing through a little pocket of light amidst dark fog. I don't think it's a traditional FPC, but I love the drama of the lost ship (in the literary sense) passing cloud-covered islands, surrounded by dark fog with just a little bit of light and blue sky. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Since it came up at QIC, I should mention that I did not add vignetting to this in postprocessing. It's just the unusual light amid the fog. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'd support cropping another third of the water in the foreground, but I support for the drama. I can easily imagine this as a cinematic shot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- After your post-QIC advice, I experimented with a few different crops. One of the things I like about this image is the circular[ish] patch of light that illuminates the water as well as what's above water. For me, it contributes to the drama/cinematic feel. As I see it, that circle extends to near the bottom of the frame in the current crop. I didn't like the way a more severe crop cut into that shape. If it were otherwise I would surely agree with you from a composition point of view. Not sure if I'm explaining that well, or if I'm helping or hurting by explaining, but there it is. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see it and get your point. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose regretfully. Nicely taken and great atmosphere, but IMHO, it is too hazy for me to support. Sorry. --Nikhil B (talk) 04:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I object to haziness in photos sometimes, but if the haziness is the entire point of the photo, it's hard for me to relate to rejecting it based on haze. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Interesting, dramatic shot. Dark part in combo with enlighted part is well made, wanted to say crop but no, its better like this. --Mile (talk) 08:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was also thinking "crop" at first but at full size, the dark waves in the foreground are scary enough to keep. It's the kind of seascape I'm always grateful I don't have to be out in. Taking advantage of a natural "vignetting" also shows that you can see motifs appearing and quickly decide to take the shot, capturing the moment. --cart-Talk 09:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate support per Ikan and cart. Daniel Case (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate support per others. But I do wish the ship appeared larger in the photo. PumpkinSky talk 19:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks very dramatic and scary. -- Pofka (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Two thirds of empty water, a big ship, and fog. I'm not sensitive here. Too much manierism. I suppose it would be politiphotographically correct to support...--Jebulon (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)...And I'm not sure vignetting is natural.--Jebulon (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to take issue with this. I don't mind if you oppose because it doesn't strike you as a FP or if it seems too melodramatic (I would agree re: the latter, except that's why I like it), but it sounds like you're accusing me of lying and/or misrepresenting re: vignetting. There was no vignetting added. Any tone adjustments were done to the entire image. The only exception was a minor adjustment to the ship itself (and not its surroundings). If it helps to clarify, you can see another example from shortly after here: File:Ship in the SF Bay fog (40413).jpg, in which the effect is still visible on the left but not so much the right. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 08:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bow of a bark, Aghios Minas, Chalkida, Greece.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2017 at 18:47:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Evening light, a bow of an abandoned barque, Chalkida, Greece.-- Jebulon (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is that a small dust spot in the middle of the ring? Daniel Case (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Bonjour. Magnified at max zoom, I think this is a small arachnoid building the net !--Jebulon (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice detail and texture, although I think it could be better served by cropping in more closely, getting the unsharp areas out of the picture. Daniel Case (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Apart from Golden hour, nothing special. Sorry. --A.Savin 17:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 17:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per A. Savin. --Karelj (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin. Texture is somewhat interesting, but I'm not bowled over. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per A. Savin. --Yann (talk) 08:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Per A.Savin--Ermell (talk) 07:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 22:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Herbaceous plants of choram county.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2017 at 14:43:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Maps#Unsorted
Info created by Mr.Polaz - uploaded by Mr.Polaz - nominated by Mr.Polaz -- Mr.Polaz (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mr.Polaz (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Good, useful map, but nothing unusual. I've seen a lot of maps like this over the years. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I appreciate the work that's gone into this, but I'm disturbed by the similarity of the greens; too many of them look like the others.--Peulle (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Peulle. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 22:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. -- Pofka (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 23:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mallnitz Seebachtal Wasserfälle 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2017 at 14:24:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Austria#Carinthia
Info Waterfalls in the Seebach Valley near Mallnitz, High Tauern National Park, Carinthia, Austria. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 18:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 08:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 22:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Roussel, Paris, ses fauxbourgs et ses environs, 1731.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2017 at 16:01:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps
Info created by Roussel - uploaded by Paris 16 - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. Great details, very good quality. Yann (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Got a 502 error; will try again later. Daniel Case (talk) 05:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You can see the original version on the LOC.--Paris 16 (talk) 06:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Support Wow! I bet those dots are individual blades of grass at this scale. Daniel Case (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is awesome - a really big full-size antique map of Paris. The scan is excellent, you can even see the flaws in the paper and each individual letter, pen stroke and line. :) --Peulle (talk) 07:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one has crazy file size... Came from the future. -- Pofka (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 22:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2014I7686 - Львів.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2017 at 08:14:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Мирослав Видрак - uploaded by Мирослав Видрак - nominated by Мирослав Видрак (talk) 08:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Мирослав Видрак (talk) 08:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice, but it looks oversharpened to me what (I think) consequently have produced noise. I would rework it. --Hockei (talk) 11:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice view. I would crop out the half sculpture at the right. --XRay ^talk 15:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks, I cropped it --Мирослав Видрак (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find the clash between the brighter, splashier colors created by the spotlights and the more sedate colors on the other side jarring. Daniel Case (talk) 04:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dark and chaotic composition, especially ruined by the neon lights. -- Pofka (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with pofka HalfGig talk 01:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Magpie moth (Abraxas grossulariata).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2017 at 09:21:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info And can you find (and identify) the little bug? All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 09:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 09:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support Light is harsh but that may have been what you needed to capture this. Daniel Case (talk) 02:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support per Daniel. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - love it! Atsme 📞 23:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Minaret of Mosque Zitouna.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2017 at 11:12:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info all by IssamBarhoumi -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 11:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak support a lot of technical issues at full size (e.g. lack of sharpness, CAs); much better when downscaled a bit - the file's more than large enough even at 50%. Appears a bit underexposed, though --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- dear Martin Falbisoner have a look now I improved it --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - better! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose for many of the same reasons mentioned by Martin. Seems like someone tried to compensate for the underexposure by overprocessing—there's a line of some sort around the columns, and the shadows seem too soft, as if vigorously suppressed. And the sky color seems a little bit off at some points.
Also, I'm not impressed with the composition; this through-the-columns view works better when there's more of it. Daniel Case (talk) 05:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel. -- Pofka (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --fedaro (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wiesbaden BW 2017-04-24 20-51-36.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2017 at 15:56:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 15:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 15:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Very nice, but why did you crop so close to the fountain on the right? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "Kurhaus" is the main object, so I put the fountain close to the border to guide the viewers look from the first over the second fountain to the building. --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which is also the reason why the nearest foreground is a bit unsharp. I think your point of view is valid, so I'll give you mild

Support, though I wish there were some space to the right of the fountain, and the lack of it creates tension in the composition, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support good light and colors Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rusty chain in fishing boat.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2017 at 04:42:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice colors but being a stationary object, the quality/sharpness bar for rusty chains on FP is much higher than this, IMO. At least some focus stacking should be done. --cart-Talk 07:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Castelazesque, therefore good in conception and idea, but achievement could be sharper, even without focus stacking.--Jebulon (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per cart with an assist from Jebulon. Daniel Case (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cart & Jebulon arguments. -- Pofka (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 11:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maria Saal Dom Arndorfer Altar 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2017 at 16:25:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Austria
Info Arndorf Altar at the parish- and pilgrimage church of the Assumption of Mary at Maria Saal, Carinthia, Austria. Younger Villach Studio, probably Lukas and/or Heinrich Tausmann, around 1520. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose The motif itself is FP-worthy but the light management of the window in the background is not really good, that causes 2 problems firstly it is disturbing to have a bright area right behind the main subject and secondly the detail is mostly gone. Not your best work which is at highest level in other cases. --Poc o² 17:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think this is or can be an FP, but Poco makes a good point about the very bright white light coming through the stained glass windows. Perhaps you could selectively decrease the brightness of the windows a bit. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The shadow is disturbing too.--Jebulon (talk) 09:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 17:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jinyun Xiandu 2017.09.10 06-47-19.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2017 at 13:06:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created, uploaded & nominated by myself. -- Zhangzhugang (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zhangzhugang (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great composition and more classically Chinese, but unsharp and noisy. Daniel Case (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel Case.--Peulle (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. --cart-Talk 08:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak support could be better technically - but great mood --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Zhangzhugang I'm close to support, but think you could have processed this better in Lightroom to avoid so much noise in the background. For example, using a mask when sharpening and then apply a small amount of NR (see this for example).

Above comment apparently made by Colin who forgot to sign it. --cart-Talk 07:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone,especially Colin. I have adjust the white balance and reduce noise in the new version. Below is an alternative photo.--Zhangzhugang (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel. -- Pofka (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful image. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 05:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand what you've done with the white balance. Is was good before. Now it's much too blue as far I see. --Hockei (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 22:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative, not featured[edit]

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Oppose You ruined that mysterious composition here. -- Pofka (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Another picture. Therefore It isn't an alternative. The other one's composition is better in the way as Pofka said. --Hockei (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 22:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunbird Amethyst 2017 06 18 9677.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2017 at 10:48:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info An amethyst sunbird (a nectarivore) visiting an Aloe flower. All by -- Alandmanson (talk) 10:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alandmanson (talk) 10:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp enough on the head for FP; the focus is on the body and the head is unfortunately not in the same plane. Charles (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think the entire back third of the body or tail are focused enough, either. Very nice photo and a solid QI, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 10:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Without even looking at the picture in closeup, the background doesn't work with the foreground. Daniel Case (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. -- Pofka (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 17:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trier Kurfürstliches Palais BW2017-09-10 09-50-35.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2017 at 08:36:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Germany
Info created - uploaded - nominated -- Berthold Werner (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please add a category above. Yann (talk) 09:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Very nice place and I'd love to support, however too strong unsharpness at edges. Sorry --A.Savin 14:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per A. Savin. Daniel Case (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose Such amazing capture but it is just too unsharp... Really pity... -- Pofka (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful place, very good composition and sharp enough for me. I can vote only positive. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wrong compo IMO. Needs a crop at left, and more space above and below.--Jebulon (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colonial Garden gazebo 3 NBG LR.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2017 at 22:47:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
Colonial Garden gazebo at Norfolk Botanical Garden. All by me. -- PumpkinSky talk 22:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 22:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – blown highlights in the sky and some leaves blurry from wind, but pleasing composition and I like the soft, dappled lighting. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Johann Jaritz and Juliancolton: I can crop out the top and bring in the sides if you think it'd be a better crop. I can try myself our if you prefer you can make an image note as a suggested crop. PumpkinSky talk 02:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Juliancolton about the dappled lighting. I also love the (apparent) up angle and the sundial seeming to float among the trees between the two columns. A crop may or may not help, not sure. HalfGig talk 11:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just doesn't stand out enough for me, sorry. Daniel Case (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image needs a perspective correction, both sides are leaning in. --Poco² 17:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Poco_a_poco I think I fixed it. Let me know. PumpkinSky talk 19:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdraw my nomination PumpkinSky talk 22:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 17:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pinus palustris bark 30 NBG LR.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2017 at 22:46:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order_:_Pinales
Pinus palustris (Longleaf pine) bark. All by me. -- PumpkinSky talk 22:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 22:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry PumpkinSky, but I am not "wowed by something I saw everyday in Boston. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 04:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Kong of Lasers: Fair enough, but the reason I like this so much is pretty much in line with what Ikan Kekek and HalfGig have said. It's really hard to get a DOF this deep when doing macros because the DOF at close ranges is razor thin. PumpkinSky talk 13:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I Support this one. The form is great, like a sculptor who creates a great bas relief with found objects. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but as I hinted last time, I'm bored already. And the rather harsh lighting isn't pleasing to my eye. It's a random piece of bark, no different to the bark 5cm further up the tree or 5cm further down, or to the left or right, or to the next tree, and so on. So for me just an example of texture in nature and close-up photography. So personally I'd be off trying to take a close-up photo of something different rather than another bark.
Also, the JPG is in "ProPhotoRGB" colourspace. Never use this for JPG. Nobody has a "ProPhotoRGB" monitor to see it on, and in fact nobody has ProPhotoRGB eyes as the colourspace includes many colours that are theoretically/mathematical rather than physically possible. The 8-bit colour of a JPG can't handle ProPhotoRGB with fidelity. It is intended as an intermediate working colour-space for doing colour manipulation in Photoshop on 16-bit TIFF files. You should use sRGB for internet JPGs. Also, unless you own a wide-gamut monitor, and have setup your software and operating system and monitor settings to take advantage of it, I'd strongly recommend using sRGB for the intermediate files too, as many software tools ignore or strip out colourspace details, running the risk that you end up with the wrong colours. -- Colin (talk) 08:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree with Ikan Kekek the relief textures and large close up depth of field are enchanting. HalfGig talk 11:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Taking Colin's point about the colorspace (where does it say this, though? All I see in the metadata is "uncalibrated"), I still like the texture and depth. Daniel Case (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is really good but it lacks something special to me in order to consider it one of our finest, sorry Poc o² 18:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If you will nominate all your bark pictures it is very hard to pick out the best one. I'm afraid that's not very exciting.--Ermell (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Question @Ermell: For one thing, this is a different species. So by using the same logic as you we shouldn't be able to have multiple FPs of those moth and butterfly photos that are all shot and/or mounted the same way, we shouldn't have a FP of a Mercedes E-class if we have an FP of a Mercedes C-class (or whatever make of car), if we have an FP of one Medieval German church we can't have an FP of another one, etc etc usw usw. Because this is basically what you're saying. We even have FPs of the same species and these two bark photos are not the same species and a totally different motif. Your oppose rationale is nothing but a hypocritical double-standard and as far as I'm concerned it is not a valid rational. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander but here it clearly isn't. These double standard rationals at FPC need to stop here and now. So which German church FPs are you going to put up for delisting since by your logic we should only have one German church FP, one moth\butterfly FP shot and mounted the same, one bark photo regardless of the species, one flower photo regardless of species, etc? Maybe I'll start opposing all the German church and mountain FPs because I'm bored with them and don't feel like picking out the best one. PumpkinSky talk 21:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment@PumpkinSky: I'm sorry if the picture didn't immediately show that this is a different species. It is in the nature of things that it is more difficult to depict tree bark in an interesting way than churches, which do not necessarily have to be German. To be precise, I just don't find this picture interesting enough for FP. You should not react so irritated to justified criticism just try to improve your pictures here is where it worked.--Ermell (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment@Ermell: Then that's what you should have said, not say we can we can only have one bark photo, period, of any kind. This was not justified criticism, it was a cop out on your part. This is clearly labled Pinus palustris not Pinus taeda, if you'd looked. Have you ever opposed because there's already a flower photo? I doubt it. I've seen this many times, different rules for different photos or whatever. We can have multiple photos of a bird species but only one of bark? What sense does that make? None. I'm done with the double standards, hypocrisy, and other things I have seen here. I'm done with Commons. PumpkinSky talk 22:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination PumpkinSky talk 22:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 17:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yellow Nasturtium Flower.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2017 at 22:39:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info all by me -- Talk to Kong of Lasers 22:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Talk to Kong of Lasers 22:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunate crop at top.--Jebulon (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jebulon: How do you fix it? --Talk to Kong of Lasers 22:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others. You fix it by not cropping at the top and including the entire flower. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: Thank you for helping "a lot". --Talk to Kong of Lasers 15:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. That's the way you take the photo the next time. Not every photo can be turned into an FP after the fact. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The surroundings are also not pleasing to the eye, especially the wall with something written on it. --Shishir 3:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Shishirdasika: I actually had never noticed that. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 15:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, crop. Daniel Case (talk) 04:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose HalfGig talk 11:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HalfGig: Your reason? --Hockei (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Per everything above except HalfGig's unsupported vote. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 15:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 17:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seven Saints (Седмочисленици, Св Наум).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2017 at 15:07:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Macedonia
Info Seven Saints who honored in several southeast European Orthodox Churches as the creators and distributors of the Cyrillic and Glagolitic alphabet. My shot. -- Mile (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is chroma noise in the upper part. Also, please add fresco category.--Peulle (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Peulle its handheld, ISO 1600. Frescos added.--Mile (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question I came across similar paintings in Cappadocia and I can't really compare, but I'm wondering if this shouldn't be a bit more saturated - Benh (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Peulle,Benh check again, true, its is more saturated, i had too much red/blue inside, and put offset and gamma. I have catalogue beside, and now is more comparable. They even put more, but again, its about camerman who made it, i dont like too much saturated...more to be real. This one in St Naum all are very out-of-saturation. Can you show me that one you saw ? 7 saints is very rare, and Greeks dont have it, more Slavic people. --Mile (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not doubting the value of the photo. Just questioning the saturation. Here is what I saw in Cappadocia [3]. I left default setting (just tweaked the WB). - Benh (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, i think there is more saturated even in real. --Mile (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question To me it looks like a shot of mediocre quality of an old fresco. What makes it special for FP? was there no way to use a support and achieve a quality shot? --Poc o² 18:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk the talk, walk the walk. Would be glad to compare. --Mile (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pick up any of these: 1 (better quality), 2 (more interesting work), 3 (looks similar to yours but 600 years older!) Poc o² 20:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Mile (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 17:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Statue of Liberty, by Anthony DELANOIX 2015-06-20 (Unsplash).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2017 at 09:37:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Anthony Delanoix, uploaded by Fæ, nominated by Yann (talk) 09:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 09:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The light is a bit flat, but the composition and sharpness are good.--Peulle (talk) 13:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition. -- Pofka (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Flat light, strange WB (too warm), and it looks cut off at the bottom. --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice mood -- Wolf im Wald 17:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not in the same class as the existing FP showing same view. Charles (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow - Benh (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Color is way off ... looks like the cross-processed version. Daniel Case (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad composition.--Jebulon (talk) 09:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boring composition (centered, bottom-up), visible CA, tilted and lacking constrast, and that artificial vignetting is just disturbing, sorry, not one of our finest Poc o² 18:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pimping up the image in Instagram look doesn't really help. Otherwise per Poco.--Ermell (talk) 07:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 09:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Yann (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 17:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saint Naum Monastery (манастир Свети Наум код Охрида, Македонија).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2017 at 15:34:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Macedonia
Info Saint Naum Monastery (Sveti Naum) near Ohrid, Republic of Macedonia. Built in 9th cent. My shot. --Mile (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 17:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Fantastic. Could you please add "9th-century" to the file description? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info Added. St. Naum was pupil of St Cyrill and Metodius. What i didnt write, there is a legend...Naum grave is inside, and if you put your ear on the grave, you can hear his heart beating. I did hear it. Some poeple know this, tourists not so much. Wondering if this should go into description. Its not mentioned on Wiki. --Mile (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support PumpkinSky talk 23:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Could be sharper for the resolution but OK. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zhangzhugang (talk) 03:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I stayed there six weeks ago! The monastery is a hotel now. Charles (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Its monastery, some accept visitors. --Mile (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yes, it could be s little sharper but it's not enough for me to oppose it. Sixflashphoto (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Мирослав Видрак (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ PumpkinSky talk 22:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PumpkinSky: No need to support twice.

. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 23:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OOPS. Struck out my second vote. PumpkinSky talk 23:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Talk to Kong of Lasers 23:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 05:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Косарі в дельті ДУнаю.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2017 at 17:22:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes
Info created by Ryzhkov Sergey - uploaded by Ryzhkov Sergey - nominated by Anntinomy -- Anntinomy (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Anntinomy (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I particularly like the fact that an interaction between birds is shown. This is the Google Translate into English of the Ukrainian file description: "The young bird is still trying to ask the parents for food. Kosar (Platalea leucorodia) is a rare bird that breaks within the Danube Biosphere Reserve." What does "breaks" mean? Rests during its yearly migration? Or does it simply mean that's where the birds live? Commons search is once again hanging for me, so that I can't see what other FPs we might have of this bird. Why does Commons search hang so much? Do all of you have that same problem? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not breaks but nesting :)--Anntinomy (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support About perfect. --A.Savin 20:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could be sharper, compo good. @Ikan Kekek it means "is nesting in borders of Danubian biosphere"...slowly also. They have some problems. --Mile (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Alexander. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Partially a bit noisy, but very special and interessting. --Hockei (talk) 10:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Mile, not perfect, but the birds are in focus and the poses are good. Daniel Case (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! - Benh (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit noisy, but that's not enough to hold this back. Sixflashphoto (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The front bird is blurred, but the great composition makes it excusable. Charles (talk) 09:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 17:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Talk to Kong of Lasers 00:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 09:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gyrostat (talk) 14:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 05:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Agios Minas bay Chalkida Greece.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2017 at 09:35:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Island of Euboea, clouds, as seen from the bay of Agios Minas, in Chalkida, Greece.-- Jebulon (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sky covers about 2/3 of the picture, the rest is usual holiday picture with unnatural colors (why is it so dark in sunlight?!). I'm sorry, but I don't think it is special in any way. Good for holiday pictures album, but not for the featured picture candidates nomination. -- Pofka (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Pofka. --Karelj (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Usual comment here now, it is the current fashion in FPC. Pfff.--Jebulon (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well, sorry to say, but per Pofka... - Benh (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I like the sky and I don't think this is just a typical tourist snap shot at all. And the darkness is presumably logically explained by cloud cover. But oddly enough (or maybe not), it's the positioning of the buoys in the picture frame that's ruining the form for me. It's possible that cloning them out would solve the problem for me, but I hardly ever make such recommendations. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per everyone else. Daniel Case (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:CN Tower, Toronto, Canada (Unsplash DJ kOgH5u0o).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2017 at 09:49:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
Info created by Scott Webb, uploaded by Fæ, nominated by Yann (talk) 09:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 09:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question Pretty picture but why is this so off-center? I could see a little off but this is way over on the left side. PumpkinSky talk 11:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The idea is to follow the rule of thirds. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Yea, but I think it's too far to the left. PumpkinSky talk 17:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It doesn't matter to me that it's on the left; artist's decision. It's really the cloud formation that makes the picture work for me, anyway, so I welcome seeing a bunch of those clouds. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Extraordinary. --Hockei (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - just looking at the image makes me feel like I did when I was a kid laying in the front yard looking up at the stars. Atsme 📞 23:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unfortunately. I know it could be argued that this is largely a matter of personal opinion, but I have to agree with PumpkinSky – the rule of thirds is a good guide, but it's not a justification unto itself. The far-left placement of the main subject feels unnatural and forced; this isn't how I would look at the tower in real life. I'd prefer a central composition. I'm sure this will be promoted with or without me standing in the way, and I won't get upset about it, but these are my feelings. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support To me the clouds make the offset tower interesting. Daniel Case (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree very much with Julian's critique -- Thennicke (talk) 11:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works very well. --cart-Talk 17:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 17:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Juliancolton. --Karelj (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Falu koppargruva July 2017 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2017 at 06:45:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry
Info Falun copper mine with the great pit in the foreground and the mining town of Falun in the background. The mine operated for a millennium from the 10th century to 1992. Since 2001 a World Heritage site and and described as one of the most outstanding industrial monuments in the world. We have one FP of the great pit but this photo is taken in the opposite direction and also show the connection between the mine and the historic mining town of Falun. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 06:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 06:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting, well performed. Why not used? --A.Savin 21:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Done In use now. I have been to busy taken and uploading photos in september.--ArildV (talk) 11:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I think it would work better with less sky. Daniel Case (talk) 03:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yep. I waited a day or so to think about this and I don't have a great reason not to support this. Sixflashphoto (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Educational/encyclopedic value? Yep! But a picture of a big hole in the ground in low light is not beautiful or striking. The other photo you link shows off some interesting ridges, because they're given a closeup in fuller light. This is a very good VI, in my opinion, but not an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Contrast is very low, so the image is dull -- Thennicke (talk) 05:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Difficult without sunlight. IMO brightness and contrast should be increased a bit to make it work.--Ermell (talk) 07:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan Kekek. --Karelj (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much more interesting than the other FP. Marc Mongenet (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parnassia palustris - Niitvälja bog.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2017 at 05:19:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info Marsh Grass-of-Parnassus (Parnassia palustris), all by Ivar (talk) 05:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 05:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality not there for common flower. Hard to get it handheld in this compo. --Mile (talk) 08:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 11:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't asses the technical quality, but whether the photo is special. I feel nothing when I look at it. The quarter crop from a vertical view doesn't give me wow. --Hockei (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose Nice compo, but per Mile I think we could a shot with the whole flower in focus. Daniel Case (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ...and 7 --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- per Mile--Ermell (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notre-Dame de Montréal Basilica, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2017 at 06:27:14 (UTC)

Front view of the main nave
Back view of the main nave
Main altar
Pipe organ
General view including the side of the main nave
Ceiling

Info Set of images of the interior of the Notre-Dame Basilica, located in the historic district of Old Montreal, in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. The interior of basilica, built in Gothic Revival style, is impressive with vivid colors, stars and filled with hundreds of intricate wooden carvings and several religious statues. It was built between 1823 and 1829 after a design of James O'Donnell and it has become one of the landmarks of the city. All by me, Poc o² 06:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info I've seen many churches in my life but this one is one of those that really impressed me after I visited it in 2007, but the pictures I took back then didn't make it justice. Poc o² 06:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 06:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First let me say I'm very happy to see you contributing new images again. I recall Diliff's version File:Notre-Dame Basilica Interior, Montreal, Canada - Diliff.jpg (which actually dates from 2006) and his comments at the FPC: "It's quite a dark interior and to preserve the highlight details, I've chosen not to bump the shadows too much. As is often the case, the full size image doesn't look as dark as it does in the thumbnail so please view at 100%". This last comment is true: if one makes his image full-screen, the eye adjusts to the lower ambient light compared to a thumbnail on white. My first thoughts on seeing this collection was "who turned the lights up max" and "why is everything so yellow". Aside from the HDR brightness and colours, I don't think the pulpit shot is at FP level. You've shot it too close and the extreme perspective distortion is too much. I'll have a closer study of the set later. -- Colin (talk) 06:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Colin: You're probably right about the pulpit, but there was not much playroom behind me. Either this way or with a partial view of the pulpit due to the benches (as there was no possibility to get to the upper level of the basilica). The pulpit is not essential part of the set, though, I could remove it. Poc o² 07:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good point by Colin. This set looks as shiny as Las Vegas lights. Comparing to Diliff version, it is clear that naturally this place is not that shiny. EDIT : Support the new version of the set. -- Pofka (talk) 07:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I have to say it never looked anything like this when I visited. I will freely admit that I visited in January late in the afternoon where there was no ambient light filtering through the windows, whereas there is in Poco's version, but I don't think it needed to be processed with so much luminosity. It seems much too bright and saturated, not just compared to my recollection of the scene, but also aesthetically speaking. I think all the images would benefit from a more low-key approach to processing but that is just my gut feeling. Diliff (talk) 08:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, from my point of view, your version, David looks too dark to me, to be honest. Yes, we had daylight coming into the church, as you can see here, but still I feel that the lighting in the church was stronger. These pictures do reflect pretty much what I recall, I can surely reduce the exposition a bit, but not to that level. Regarding saturation I've to say that the colors of this basilica are really vivid, specially the altar. It would be great to hear the opinion of somebody who has been recently there. Poco² 08:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not saying you should reduce it to the levels of my image. As I said, mine was taken without any ambient light as it was dark outside. The lighting was very different so I'm not saying it should look like mine. My image looks as it looked when I visited (very dark, just the lights of the altar and a few lights on the columns). Yours obviously had more ambient light during your visit, and I can see that more of the lights in the stalls were turned on, as well as more lights on the altar too. I'm just saying that regardless of how it was when you visited, it appears a little too bright in these images (objectively speaking). The colours are a bit washed out and some highlights blown or nearly blown (perhaps just one colour channel blown, which results in a flat area of no detail). Look at the altar and ceiling, there's a lot of detail missing there. Look at the rays of light coming from the middle of the spires in the centre - there's shades of yellow that are almost completely missing - it looks almost white. I just think this is the result of overexposure (or at least processing so that it is too bright). We don't perceive really luminous colours as 'blown' in the same way a camera and display with limited dynamic range portrays them. I can't imagine that this is how it really looked in person. Diliff (talk) 10:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - David, I checked the sources of light again. Apart from the fact that apparently all lamps were on, when I visited it, there are several light inlets in the church not just in the walls, but in the roof, some are over those lamps in the middle of the nave and a bigger one over the main altar. About your comments on overexposure will check that closely this evening. Poc o² 12:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose HDRish colors, temperature, with last one flare problems. --Mile (talk) 08:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was there last summer (that is, summer of 2016), on an afternoon. There was some light coming in, but if I remember correctly, it wasn't nearly as bright as depicted in these photos, although it was brighter than when Diliff was there. I feel like the atmosphere in the church was closer to Diliff's version, though. I hope my girlfriend, a former resident of Montreal, has a chance to look at these photos, because she could say whether it ever looked this bright in her experience. I'll let you know what she has to say when I'm able to show these to her. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Need perspectives fix, color temperature and wrong light processing. I know this building and how it look and the pictures are not showing the reality --The Photographer 10:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The Photographer: could you be more concrete about those perspective issues (maybe adding some notes if you don't mind)? Poc o² 12:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Por ejemplo, las columnas en la parte superior parecen estiradas hacia las esquinas. --The Photographer 15:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Photographer: what you refer to are not perspective issues (as verticals are verticals), but rather "distortion issues", which IMHO are unavoidable in the corners. Poc o² 17:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm puzzled with the colors. The top of the pulpit is deformed.--Jebulon (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've uploaded a new version of the series with less saturation and exposure, the difference should be visible but not dramatic. I've also removed the pulpit picture from the series, I agree with the comments in that case. David, the dynamic range in the church was considerable, my darkest frames do in fact have some overexposed dots (lamps) but not in the altar. Poco² 18:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It's normal to have blown highlights in the lamps. It's nearly impossible to process lamps properly anyway from my experience, because Lightroom doesn't actually provide enough control to reduce the highlights enough - partly due to the sliders not going far enough, and partly because the processing engine seems to have trouble with extreme highlight reduction. So if there was no overexposure in the altar then it was just processed too brightly I think. At least no information was lost, you just needed to reduce the luminosity a bit. I think it's an improvement now, the altar's colours look more natural and the exposure looks closer to natural. Diliff (talk) 08:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support the new versions as an acceptable compromise between what was and what can be achieved. Daniel Case (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, but i wont support set because last is still out, last two are maybe out. First two are best. --Mile (talk) 08:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel. What's much better than in the previous version is that the paintings are not blown out. There are some parts of some photos that could be a bit sharper, but I am content to leave you to your own devices to do something or nothing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - while perfection may be hairline elusive the aesthetics and overall dynamics are not. Atsme 📞 23:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Ermell (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zhangzhugang (talk) 11:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well done. Zhangj1079 (Bonjour!) 23:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Jebulon but is a great job for me --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2017 at 23:03:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info all by me — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Railroad & Ferry Depot Museum in Tiburon, California, looking out to San Francisco Bay. The museum is on the National Register of Historic Places, but I don't think the building is likely to wow many people; it's the composition of the image that I quite like, and the slice of the San Francisco Bay area that it captures (Angel Island is in the immediate background, and you can see the city skyline in the far distance, behind the little sailboat). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. PumpkinSky talk 23:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bottom crop is suboptimal, with a patch of grass in the middle that serves no purpose. Either include more at the bottom or crop it out entirely. (A bit brighter wouldn't hurt either, but I'm mostly opposing because of the composition.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@King of Hearts: Are you envisioning something like this? (I've uploaded a crop and then restored the original pending opinions from the two other people that have weighed in, PumpkinSky and Johann Jaritz). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can support either crop but I think the new one is slightly better. PumpkinSky talk 02:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be better, yes. It's still a little bit underexposed (the whites should be close to 255 without exceeding it), and the technical issues mentioned by Julian should be fixed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support contingent on a few improvements. I do mostly like the composition (the sailboat is a small but excellent touch) but as KoH says, the grass near the bottom could be cropped out without cutting into the bottom of the closest bollard... content-aware fill may do a decent job of cloning it out without cropping. Also, I would run it through lens profile corrections to remove color fringing, vignetting, and minor distortion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Juliancolton and King of Hearts: It's an Olympus MFT camera, so lens corrections are built into the raw file (discovered this when trying to figure out where the profile for it was in Lightroom). That said, I've gone in and done some manual defringing. Also did a bit of a perspective adjustment to address the distortion issue you mentioned. That necessitated a bit different crop. Brightened a little bit, and applied a minor vignetting correction. The result is here (again, I've reverted to the original for FPC purposes, but will change if there's a broad sense this new version is an improvement). Thanks for your feedback. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 06:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't know that! You learn something new every day. :) Yes, I think the linked revision is notably improved. Hopefully enough other participants chime in to endorse making that the live version. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@King of Hearts, PetarM, and Daniel Case: Just a ping to see if you agree that this version sufficiently addresses these concerns? If so I will switch to that version and ping those who have supported thus far just in case. Thanks.— Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support There are two albatrosses sitting on the roof, which is really nice. --Shishir 6:04 22, September 2017 (UTC)
Would support, but grass should be croped. --Mile (talk) 08:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 11:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The building and the coastline across the bay (?) behind it might make a featurable image, but per King I find the riprap, pathway and bollards below it to be distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do agree with KoH actually, and as you already mention above, Rhododendrites, the object is not really wowing (old/historic in the States is surely not what we'd consider old/historic in Europe). I believe that I'd liked to see more of the bay on the right. With this composition both the bay and the building are fighting for attention. There is also visible green CA, that should be removed --Poc o² 17:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per comments above. Yann (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmmm, not sure what to do with this one. Several of the opposes seem to be based on the things that are now, at least according to a couple people, at least mostly fixed. Obviously there's not much I can do for those who don't care for the composition, but would it make more sense to withdraw this one and start over with the modified version? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rhododendrites I think this is a great pic, it is very refreshing to see a normal house treated the same way normally only done with castles and churches here. However, people are usually slow to come back and check out a photo (as well as their votes) after issues have been fixed, especially during a weekend. This nom has become very jumbled, so I think it would be better to withdraw this now and make a new fresh one of the fixed version. In the future, you can use the "Alt" option for a fixed version on a nomination so as to keep the old one to compare with. Doing back-and-forth changes in the same photo is not the best way since it may be confusing for voters and you need to constantly 'ping' them. Make a clean new start. --cart-Talk 11:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
talk put Alternative or once more. I would crop bottom, and put some exsposure, also check if crop some of top would be better. --Mile (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination to renominate other version per cart's advice — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 08:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leshan Giant Buddha 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2017 at 22:28:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by fannyss - rest by me -- Talk to Kong of Lasers 22:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Talk to Kong of Lasers 22:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed sky and not a great perspective and composition either. --Shishir 2:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose The sky is burnt, sorry. --Cayambe (talk) 08:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Shishir. Daniel Case (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 05:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Ralf Roleček 20:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Peulle (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 08:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:2009R4943 - Кам'янець-Подільський.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2017 at 19:53:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by Мирослав Видрак - uploaded by Мирослав Видрак - nominated by Мирослав Видрак (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Мирослав Видрак (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Imho to dark and composition not outstanding. --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Berthold --Milseburg (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others Ezarateesteban 16:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Berthold. Daniel Case (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 08:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heracleum lanatum fruit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2017 at 05:28:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created by SKas - uploaded by SKas - nominated by SKas -- KSK (talk) 05:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KSK (talk) 05:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - lady bug and all - yes! Atsme 📞 22:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too busy. Daniel Case (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Indeed too busy. It is quite difficult to watch at one point of the picture. -- Pofka (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "...difficult to watch..." IMO, depends on the size of monitor. If the size of the screen is sufficient, then all details of this world of insects are visible. --KSK (talk) 07:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 08:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:St John Baptist woodcarved statuette from Groeden.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2017 at 14:56:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support but looks a bit underexposed to me --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for the support. I kept the image rather dark to correct partially the glare (the worst was corrected by retouching). But I believe a darker view gives a bit of intimacy to this very peculiar representation of Saint John. In any case I added a brighter version for evaluation --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Underexposed. Increasing the brightness might cause problems with the highlights.--Ermell (talk) 07:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Underexposed --Mile (talk) 08:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Underexposed. -- Pofka (talk) 10:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Peulle (talk) 10:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative version[edit]

Comment I propose a new version - --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 11:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Why is this sort of image so noisy? Charles (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Charles. Just not quite sharp enough. Daniel Case (talk) 06:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Peulle (talk) 10:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I downsized "this sort of image" (thanks Charles) because it is a cropped image while the original size of 5,504 × 8,256 pixels was maintained. It should look better now at full size --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By 'this sort of image', I just meant a 'studio' shot, not an outdoors shot. Charles (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Charles and Daniel Case. -- Pofka (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 08:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Curonian Spit NP 05-2017 img17 aerial view at Epha Dune.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2017 at 09:14:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Russia
Info Aerial photo of Curonian Spit National Park (Epha Dune at the right), Kaliningrad Oblast / Russia - All by --A.Savin 09:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 09:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support sehr schön. --Ralf Roleček 16:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 17:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ralf -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Not as sharp in the distance as one would like, but I don't know what limitations you may have been under and knowing your other work I think you did the best you could for a great scene. Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. It's beautiful, and I think the sharpness is sufficient. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ralf. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 22:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blue looks a bit oversaturated but o.k.--Ermell (talk) 07:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Panoramic view of Montreal, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2017 at 18:27:00 (UTC)

View during sunset
View during the blue hour

Info Set of panoramic views of the city of Montreal from Mount Royal, Quebec, Canada. All by me, Poc o² 18:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm aware that not long ago ArildV successfully nominated a similar set but I'd still like to give it a try. I enjoyed the lighting of both and that lightnings gives the night image a special touch, I believe. Poc o² 18:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 18:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I hope that lightning didn't get close to you. Was it really a good idea to stay on the top of Mont Royal and shoot in that situation? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan, I assure you that I've been in dangerous situations to get the shot I was aiming, but this one was none of them. The lightning is further than you could think. Indeed, it didn't rain where I was standing. Poc o² 20:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - WOW!! Add points for creativity, and prearranging a lightening bolt!! Atsme 📞 22:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow!!! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb. PumpkinSky talk 01:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per others. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Check all lights in night shot, all lights are problematic, like you moved camera, was this same lens like that monument !? --Mile (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose big wow, but the daylight pic had not the best lighting conditions and per Mile: almost all lights (even the lighting) on the night shot have artifacts. --Ivar (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Impressing.--Ermell (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support As someone else who was at Wikimania, I can say that you couldn't be too choosy on that day about the light (Or, why this year's Wikimania group photo had to be taken a day later, in a less desirable location) Daniel Case (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Somehow these photos make the city look alive and that can't be said about many panoramas. --cart-Talk 07:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zhangzhugang (talk) 11:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 12:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2013.06.04.-24-Kaefertaler Wald-Mannheim-Kleiner Sonnenroeschen-Blaeuling.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2017 at 11:25:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 11:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 11:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is a good example of a backlit butterfly, because the hairs (along with the feet and head) are so clear. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a high quality photo technically, but I cannot see why a backlit photo like this should be FP. It just doesn't appeal to me. Charles (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharing Charlesjsharp's opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Anntinomy (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles. -- Pofka (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Neptuul (talk) 06:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Veitenstein Haßberge 0261-PSD.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2017 at 08:10:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Ermell - uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Ermell -- Ermell (talk) 08:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 08:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like it - the framing. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until the CAs in the upper area will be fixed. --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC) I can Support now. You should ping the others. --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Uoaei1 and would support then --Poc o² 18:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Me too --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Uoaei1. Daniel Case (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ÇA should have been removed before nomination.--Jebulon (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with you and I would have done it if I had noticed it. My foult. Have a look at the new version and thanks for your review.--Ermell (talk) 07:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or better during the QI review...:P I checked it again and it is indeed better but I still see some purple areas, it still needs some rework --Poc o² 17:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- @Daniel Case: @Jebulon: @Poco a poco: I hope I caught all the purple areas I'd missed before. Thank you for your help and support.--Ermell (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok now’ thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 09:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Same here :) Poc o² 20:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 10:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Panoramic view of Québec ville harbour.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2017 at 03:45:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info All by -- The Photographer 03:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll be interested to see how others react. My initial reaction is that it's a nice picture, possibly featurable as is, but the foreground is boring and I'd support cropping some of it out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I think that you picked the wrong time to take this photograph as most of it is in shadow. And, although the quality is really good, I'm not convinced either about the composition. It doesn't look balanced to me. It is not that far/wide to consider it a cityscape and there is no element that really captures my attention. Probably I'd have focused more to the right (without really knowing what I'd had found there). --Poc o² 17:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Poc o² -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose Could well be an FP in the right light. Daniel Case (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 07:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:SP KazanskyCathedral 2370.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2017 at 15:45:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info Cathedral of Our Lady of Kazan in Saint Petersburg, Russia. Created and uploaded by Ludvig14 - nominated by A.Savin --A.Savin 15:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 15:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Неплохо, but you could correct bordes (PD). --Mile (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question The extreme left and right sides look like they have a black line on top and the rest of the semicircular wings also seem to have a border on top. Is that really there? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ----Ermell (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great photo, but far too much tone mapping. Obvious halos at thumbnail size. -- Thennicke (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --KSK (talk) 05:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Thennicke--Jebulon (talk) 10:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think the halos are that bad. Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Thennicke --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sixflashphoto (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Thennicke -- Wolf im Wald 16:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 17:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 22:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ovedone tonemaping The building look separated of the bakground like a drop shadow between the building and the background --The Photographer 03:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 07:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Khadzhibey left forecastle 2017 G1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2017 at 05:01:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info Left forecastle of the passenger vessel catamaran "Khadzhibey".
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition, excellent colors, and at least something different (difficult)...--Jebulon (talk) 10:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 23:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now this is how to take a cart-esque FP. Daniel Case (talk) 01:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose If cart herself doesn't think it's featurable ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

and why? Cart decides it? boh ... weird--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: Why do you always side with W.Carter? Pretty interesting... --Talk to Kong of Lasers 23:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I don't ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid it isn't making me go wow. Rope is perhaps too random in organisation. -- Colin (talk) 07:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All the good element that I love are there, but the lines, angle and light don't add up to a wow or FP composition for me, sorry. --cart-Talk 08:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin. --Karelj (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Chaotic rope, which is probably the main subject here. -- Pofka (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 17:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Litang Ge'nyen 2014.09.16 09-11-25.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2017 at 11:51:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info Ge'nyen, is a mountain in southwestern China, with an elevation of 6,204 metres (20,354 ft), it is the third highest peak in Sichuan. created, uploaded & nominated by myself. -- Zhangzhugang (talk) 11:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zhangzhugang (talk) 11:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow. :) --Peulle (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 17:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- | Prismo (disc. · contr.) 01:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 08:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yep! Sixflashphoto (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, too much mountains hidden by clouds for wowing me. --Milseburg (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Молния на Каменной могиле.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2017 at 22:34:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created by Anatoliy Volkov - uploaded by Anatoliy Volkov - nominated by -- Anntinomy (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Anntinomy (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Atsme 📞 22:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on grounds of technical quality. The image is grainy and suffers from extensive long exposure noise, as well as some color fringing. I also feel it's oversaturated. Lightning photos are quite common so there's no compelling reason to overlook the IQ issues here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unnatural post-processing; tint is +40 in the magenta direction. But I disagree with Juliancolton and think IQ is good enough for a night landscape. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Stars are drawn here. --Mile (talk) 08:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Manipulated unrealistically, per King. Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King, and I don't think those a drawn stars, looks more like some artifacts since they are on the ground-part too. --cart-Talk 17:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice but unnatural. -- Pofka (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 12:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014.07.15.-14-Presseler Teich--Grosses Granatauge-Maennchen.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2017 at 18:30:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good dragonfly and plant stem. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. More space at left would be better. Charles (talk) 08:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Charles regarding the space at left. --Cayambe (talk) 10:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Hockei (talk) 10:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Charles (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support ----fedaro (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would add more on left, and crop some on bottom-top.--Mile (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have the same feeling when I view this photo. I like it very much as it is. --Hockei (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Saisumanth Javvaji (talk) 14:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 07:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kopenhagen (DK), Nyhavn -- 2017 -- 1711.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2017 at 23:48:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created & uploaded by Dietmar Rabich - - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I challenge you to look away from this! :-) And it's sharp, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like in a computer game, but how can you resist here :) --A.Savin 13:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Classic XRay - the user who inspired me to take photos like this. --cart-Talk 17:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:-) --XRay ^talk 12:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support It look like a picture mine --The Photographer 18:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool thing Poc o² 18:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you, Ikan Kekek. --XRay ^talk 04:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support I want to run my fingers over it in the worst way ... Daniel Case (talk) 06:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 07:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Pocitos.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2017 at 02:41:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pocitos, Montevideo, neighborhood and beach

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Uruguay
Info created by Fedaro - uploaded by Fedaro - nominated by Fedaro -- fedaro (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- fedaro (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oh, a Phantom 4 Pro. Not bad, but you may browse thru Dronestagram how some really "WOWing" drone shots look like. Apart from that, there are chromatic aberrations --A.Savin 13:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please provide better categories for the photo. --cart-Talk 17:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A nice photo, but better drone images exist- run of the mill. Jcc (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't stand out from other drone photos, or other aerial photos generally. Daniel Case (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 07:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:SolarEclipseCorvallis Aug 21 2017.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2017 at 08:32:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
Info created by Tuanna2010 - uploaded by Tuanna2010 - nominated by Jcpag2010 -- Jcpag2010 (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jcpag2010 (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If I, taking a photo of an eclipse for the first time ever, about a thousand kilometers to the east, could get it sharper, all of these could have been sharper too. Daniel Case (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pretty cool collection, but I'm a bit disturbed by the square edges ot the individual shots. It just looks like a very quick editing job. As for the individual images, I suppose they could be nominated separately or as a set nomination but I don't know if the quality is high enough to pass.--Peulle (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 09:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:A60 stock booths.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2017 at 15:47:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles
Info created by Bengley1 - uploaded by Cloudbound - nominated by Jcc -- Jcc (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jcc (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite small, too dark, nothing special. Yann (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann. I would add the blown highlights on the front of the car. Might have worked with a tighter crop, but it's too small for that. Daniel Case (talk) 00:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Cool subject, but poor image quality by today's FP standards for a static scene. dllu (t,c) 23:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too black and poor quality. -- Pofka (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 08:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anfiteatro de Pula, Croacia, 2017-04-16, DD 07-11 PAN.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2017 at 23:57:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Panoramic view of the interior of the Pula Arena, an amphitheatre located in Pula, Croatia. This Roman edifice was constructed between 27 BC and 68 AD and is among the largest surviving Roman arenas in the world. At the same time, is the best preserved ancient monument in Croatia and the only remaining amphitheater having all four side towers with all three Roman architectural orders entirely preserved. Poc o² 07:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info created & uploaded by Diego Delso - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'll pretty much let this photo speak for itself, except to note how skillfully Diego controlled the light by avoiding the sun while showing the brightened part of the sky that's below it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Getting a nice shot here was easy, this anfitheater is gorgeous. Thank you Ikan for the nomination! Poc o² 07:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'm really enjoying your series of shots of this well-preserved Roman amphitheater. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment perspective and sharpness issues plus stitching errors (notes added). --Ivar (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the notes and close review, Ivar. New version uploaded where I hope I adressed them all. Poc o² 18:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better. --Ivar (talk) 10:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 12:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 10:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The bottom crop is too tight, otherwise good. --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate support Not perfect, but better than it could have been given the constraints on it. Daniel Case (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bow of MS Stena Danica crossing Kattegat.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2017 at 22:51:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info All by me, -- cart-Talk 22:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cart-Talk 22:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting, but no wow. -- -donald- (talk) 06:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting and very good. "No wow" is no reason to decline for me. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 07:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, per donald --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ideal place for fisheye. --Mile (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but I can't change the lens on my camera. --cart-Talk 09:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can if you buy a time machine, go back in time and do it. ;-D --Peulle (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even that won't work since I don't own a DSLR. (I thought that everyone knew about my crappy cameras by now.)

--cart-Talk 13:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add-up lens ? I had it on Canon A590. Dont worry, Peulle, its not Titanic, next time. --Mile (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me as well. -- Pofka (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've looked at the image again and I don't know if it's the memory of my navy days or what, but there's definitely something about this image that speaks to me. I just don't see many images like this one.--Peulle (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Those were sort of some of my own thoughts when nominating this. Most good ship photos are taken looking at ships, not many of them are taken onboard ships, which is where I prefer to be. :) --cart-Talk 18:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the abstraction and the mood ... like a few others that have been nominated here of sweeping sea scenes this makes me hear the beginning of "Clocks" when I look at it. Daniel Case (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 22:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Livioandroni. --Karelj (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support - I understand that this photo doesn't hit you over the head with amazement, but I find it a charming, moody seascape. I think it's good and striking enough to be a good feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a good concept but the colors are too drab for me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support per Ikan Kekek. --Ryan Hodnett (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support (maybe moderate support?) I feel like someone from far inland arriving at the sea after much anticipation, so there's "wow" there for me. As others say, there are things that could be better (wideangle lens, say), but not enough issues to move away from support. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 08:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Пронурок (Cinclus cinclus) недалеко від гнізда.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2017 at 19:28:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info created by Alexkrol - uploaded by Alexkrol - nominated by Anntinomy -- Anntinomy (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Anntinomy (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Great pose and nice composition, but my feeling is that not enough of the bird is sharp for this photo to reach the level of other FP bird photos. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Color space:Uncalibrated. --Mile (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Ikan says; and 1/100 sec not fast enough for a moving bird. Charles (talk) 09:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Close, but not quite sharp enough.--Peulle (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. -- Pofka (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan and Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FPX added at 19:49, 20 September 2017‎ by Ezarate. Please sign FPXs so it's easier to see who made it and to get a timestamp for the 24 h period. --cart-Talk 21:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)‎[reply]

FPX tag removed since Мирослав Видрак has voted in support for the photo within the 24 hour period. --cart-Talk 20:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Мирослав Видрак (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 08:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Huzhou Nanxun 2017.05.06 18-00-38.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2017 at 12:41:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info Hongji Bridge in Nanxun, Zhejiang, China. Created, uploaded & nominated by myself. -- Zhangzhugang (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zhangzhugang (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lady in red taking a photo is disturbing for me. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Spurzem. Also, too much blur and not enough sharpness. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't mind the lady in red ... this is China, after all, you will see people in places built for them. But what keeps the picture from getting my support is that impossible-to-ignore blurred bough in the upper right. Daniel Case (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
100% oppose Blurred tree part which covers 1/4 of the picture... -- Pofka (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Life around jungle.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2017 at 11:11:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Pallab kabir, uploaded by Pallabkabir, nominated by Masum-al-Hasan -- Masum-al-Hasan (talk) 11:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Masum-al-Hasan (talk) 11:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great mood, high quality. --Yann (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good composition, but the image is really unsharp --Shishir 15:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even on 24 MPx (author left full size) is sharp enough. But composition, color gradience make this shot very original. --Mile (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 16:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm with Shishir on this one.--Peulle (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ The mood in this is really something but the quality is a bit low. There is also the eternal question if we should feature pictures with people being on railway tracks. I may be swayed either way later. --cart-Talk 18:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Made up my mind, the quality is simply too low. Pity. --cart-Talk 08:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Great concept. Poor execution. Charles (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support great composition and mood IMO. - Benh (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

could be further improved by cropping out the bottom maybe... - Benh (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose on not only the technical issues but the person walking the tracks (unless they are unused, which I doubt from their appearance, but then again they are in a protected area, so maybe ...). Daniel Case (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp. A pity.@cart-Talk:"There is also the eternal question if we should feature pictures with people being on railway tracks" Really ? there is a question about that ? I've never met it...--Jebulon (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jebulon: That qestion is usually brought up at all discussions about photos taken on or in close proximety to railways. Don't you remember this, this or even this as examples? There is even a special template developed for these kind of photos, see {{Tracks are for trains}}, it is used on 2609 photos. --cart-Talk 15:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: ...Completely new for me. Typically anglo-saxon, with all due respect. Does it exist for highways, roads, sea, rivers, and all dangerous places (McDonalds restaurants, my bed, or so) ?--Jebulon (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jebulon: , well not entirely Anglo-Saxon... but that is in Canada. --cart-Talk 17:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, anglo-saxon indeed. French speaking Canadians are americans...speaking french. And not latin-Europeans.--Jebulon (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And what do quebecois people do when you call them "Anglo-Saxon" to their faces? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cross the Atlantic Ocean first, and think about during that time.--Jebulon (talk) 09:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support wow surpasses lacks of quality IMO Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support For Christian --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Shishir--great idea but unsharp. The tracks look curvy, if true, trains aren't using them. If optical illusion, I don't care if people are on it if it was done safely. Three animals are on it and aren't scared: a monkey, a large bird, and what looks like some sort of ungulate. There's something odd about the backlight on the monkey. PumpkinSky talk 22:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, but opposing because "people walking on a railway track" is really a stupid reason. As before. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- +1. And we are to promote this as QI ?--Jebulon (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose it really is a lovely scene/picture, but the technical issues are a bit too much. That said, there may be some opportunities for improvement. Cropping out some of the foreground, pulling some of the details out of the darkness, etc. Not sure it would bring it to FP. You should certainly be proud of this shot, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ebenthal Gurnitz Propstei und Pfarrkirche Sankt Martin 06032015 0283.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2017 at 14:37:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ezarateesteban 19:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Judging by the other pictures, they have recently replaced the roof. Daniel Case (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Support - What part of liberal sites like this one are relevant to the wheels turning in D.C. Don't believe it: If you're a DC resident, call their many number. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC) - I didn't post this bullshit. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Ikan Kekek: did you accidentally paste in text from somewhere else? Daniel Case (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+1? I asked at his talk page... --cart-Talk 17:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. It looks like someone somehow impersonated me. I don't know how they did it, because they also made it look like I actually did it, if you see the history. I'm not sure what to do about this. I'm going to log out and change my password, but I hope no-one is keylogging me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support Nice lighting, quality and composition. The cemetery is though not visible from this angle, I'd remove that cat from the file.. I mean weak support because there are still better views of this subject IMHO, like this one of yours. --Poc o² 18:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Support - OK, this is actually me, evaluating this picture for the first time. I agree with Poco, but I don't see the cat! Where is it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Ikan, I mean the category "Cemeteries in Ebenthal in Kärnten" in the file. Poco² 20:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, that kind of cat. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your reasoning is conclusive, Diego. I removed the cemetery category. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 22:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me the composition is unbalanced; the church is too high in the frame. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the photo including the position of the church. HalfGig talk 01:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not special enough, church partially hidden. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 07:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Freistadt Pfarrkirche Chorgewölbe 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2017 at 19:14:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Austria
Info Rib vault in the choir of the parish church Freistadt, Upper Austria. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 22:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs a perfect symmetry, it is not the case. And a perspective correction for the window at right.--Jebulon (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 22:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ----fedaro (talk) 12:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Chopped windows. It's a quite strange composition when you tried to fit the ceiling and the windows into one picture and ended up chopping part of the windows. The first from the right window is mostly chopped and looks completely random, unbalanced here. -- Pofka (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 07:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:From Preda to Bergün with Rhaetian Railway, aerial video.webm, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2017 at 21:58:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
Info created by Capricorn4049 - uploaded by Capricorn4049 - nominated by Capricorn4049 -- Capricorn4049 (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Capricorn4049 (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This could be a useful VI, except that video clips are unfortunately not accepted at VIC. However, as an FP candidate, I'm finding it a bit boring. I would have suggested editing out the time that the train is in tunnels (or all but the time needed to sufficiently identify the tunnel on the screen and show the entrance and exit from it). I'm also really bothered by the picture quality. It's really too light and quite blown in places. If the picture quality were the video equivalent of photos by Kabelleger, I might find the clip captivating even while waiting for the train to get out of the tunnel. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Starts out with overexposed shot and continues in rather low quality. The slow pace makes it look like a bad version of those "slow TV" films the Norwegiens are so fond of making and that's not working as an FP. --cart-Talk 09:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per cart. This video does suggest what might be possible with a drone, but in addition to the camera's inability to handle the high contrast at the start, it demonstrates that the moving image is not enough. It needs to be edited. Daniel Case (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As said above. --Mile (talk) 09:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question Thank you @Ikan Kekek, W.carter, Daniel Case, and PetarM: for your reviews. I agree that the video is overexposed at the beginning and that it's boring. I don't want to cut it for documentary purposes (show the whole journey in real-time). I have also absolutely no problem with it, that it will not become a featured media. I just nominated it because it got far the most positive comments of all my videos on youtube.
However, what I don't unterstand is why you think that the quality is not good? Did you look at the video in full resolution (bottom right in the player)? It is 4k (3'840 × 2'160 Pixel), a resolution that most monitors are not even able to reproduce and some computers are not able to process.--Capricorn4049 (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at full screen. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Full screen ≠ full resolution --Capricorn4049 (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 07:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rhododendron In Munnar.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2017 at 16:51:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created by Saisumanth Javvaji - uploaded by Saisumanth Javvaji - nominated by Saisumanth Javvaji -- Saisumanth Javvaji (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saisumanth Javvaji (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I'm not seeing the level of sharpness and detail I expect from a Featured Picture.--Peulle (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. Serious posterization that could even be seen at thumbnail. Daniel Case (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy, not sharp, low DOF, shadow too dark, background ... .I think it's enough. --Hockei (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Support it's good and neet Sahil ravuri 18:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, invalid vote. The rules are: "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." You have only made 9 edits. Welcome back later when you have made more edits. --cart-Talk 17:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Gnana Sreekar (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Support Koushik Avula (talk)

Sorry, this vote was made from an anonymous IP-address and therefore invalid. If you in fact are Koushik Avula, please log in and make your vote again while logged in. Thanks, --cart-Talk 17:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 22:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Good motive but not sharp enough.Sorry.--Ermell (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposers. --Cayambe (talk) 10:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle, --cart-Talk 17:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ---koushikA 06:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Per others. -- Pofka (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some striking color, but too many technical issues as others pointed out. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 07:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bay of Chalkida from Karababa castle Greece.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2017 at 09:38:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
I withdraw my nomination all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 09:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bonjour. Sorry for boring with just another tourist snapshot for family holidays album. But I like it very much. The bay of Chalkida as seen from Karababa castle, Greece.-- Jebulon (talk) 09:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jebulon compared to last shots, i think your monitor isnt set correct. Shots are dark, colors dull. Something might be wrong. Laptop ?--Mile (talk) 11:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Mile, thanks for advice. But I watch my pictures on two monitors, one MAC27 at home, and one PC19 at work. And I don't see what you say. I don't understand really what "dull" mean in this case. The fact is that the light is very harsh in summer in Greece, and I used a polarizing filter. Maybe there is something on that side. Anyway, even if I disagree with you for the most part, thanks again for interest and help.--Jebulon (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jebulon, I think you are right that the polarization filter is what is causing the problem. From what I know, strong, harsh light is not usually a reason to use such a filter. It is more designed to get rid of reflections on surfaces. I think stong light is better to control by altering the APEX exposure bias (say -0,7 or so) and fix things later in post-processing. I recently did a test myself to see how a polarizing filter altered a scene and the result looks a bit like your photo. I shot the exact same scene with and without a filter on a very bright and sunny day. I think it's a matter of taste which version you prefer. --cart-Talk 17:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned my PL long time ago, nothing good of them. Never sharp as original. --Mile (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then u probably went for the cheap ones. I personally use B+W and it's pretty good for that matter. - Benh (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Benh, PetarM, Jebulon, and W.carter: If I may offer my very humble opinion on polarizing filters...and I readily admit I don't have the knowledge or experience you all have, but I like my circular polarizing filters. In my experience, they can cut sunlight, affect colors---making them brighter or darker depending on where the sun is and where you turn the filter to, and cut reflections. See [4] and [5]. Just my two cents. PumpkinSky talk 01:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Something like that. You also loose some 1/3-half of stop. Checked EXIF of Jebulon shot. Focal 54 mm, Manual exposure, 1/60 sec, f/10, ISO 50. I would say, if you got best PL, you might loose in this Manualising. Automatic isnt that stupid, sometimes is better to leave it. I would say isnt sharp due to large time, i doubt its was on tripod. Tint +6 (i never saw od daylight that much), Vibrance +34, Blacks +28, Clarity +41, Luminance Adjustment Blue: -17. I think its more spoiled in software, with losing sharpness with handmoving (in case you got best and expencive PL), otheriwse add PL in it. --Mile (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much dear friends for your very wise comments and help.--Jebulon (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of sharpness. --Ivar (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI to me but nothing breathtaking here, --Poc o² 18:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Poco,sorry --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It would work for me. But at least four cases speak against it: Per Mile too dark, sharpness not good enough, posterisation and the trees in the sides (also a bit below) disturb in this photo. --Hockei (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Poco and Hockei. An FP can be taken from this angle, I believe. And in this light. But polarizing the whole image was probably too much. I might've gone with a GND, or used the sea from the polarized image with the land from an unfiltered one and, perhaps, GND'd sky. But that might have been too much manipulation for some people. Daniel Case (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support: Some of the specific criticisms of this photo are things I can see and consider valid. However, the photo is beautiful, and based on its overall effect, I think it deserves some love and a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support HalfGig talk 01:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Trees/plants covers similar part of the image like main subjects: city/mountains. As a result, first thing you look at is that green part which is much brighter than the rest of the picture. This is not a good enough composition for me when you first focus on secondary elements. -- Pofka (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Jebulon (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)*Sorry no, this is not a « not featured » picture, but a Withdrawn one.--Jebulon (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:CAPTAIN BADR (ship, 1978). Sète cf01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2017 at 07:46:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info created and uploaded by Christian Ferrer - nominated by Ivar (talk) 07:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 07:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I actually like the sky better in this than in the previous since it's more "boiling", but the creme-white part of the ship is a bit too bright with details lost. Think you could fix that? --cart-Talk 08:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you Ivar. The sky is quite special here. @W.carter: Done I tried to improve a bit the lightning, specially on the right, but the ship is white, and even if the paint is old and tired, the white areas can't be totally "creme" with this sun light. Hope it's good now, is it?. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks Christian, looks ok now. --cart-Talk 11:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ermell (talk) 12:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 09:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The crane looks like a Tesla coil that could be generating lightning against the dark, stormy sky. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Quiraing, Isle of Skye, Scotland - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2017 at 07:45:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Diliff - nominated by me -- Thennicke (talk) 07:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 07:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 07:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could be a watercolor painting. --cart-Talk 09:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I haven't read The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings since I was 12, I think, but this looks like the kind of landscape that inspired Tolkien's conception of Middle Earth. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support The first picture of Skye I've seen here which has made me want to go to that spot and try my own luck. Reminds me a lot of my own pictures of Ivvavik National Park, except with more development and civilization. Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Majestic. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice job --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support --Ryan Hodnett (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RhB ABe 8-12 Langwieser Viaduct from Rongg.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2017 at 07:52:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created and uploaded by Kabelleger - nominated by me -- Thennicke (talk) 07:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info Whilst there are already (at least) two FPs of similar bridges, this is an exciting new angle IMO
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 07:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Majestic. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 08:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 08:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is so impressive purely as an image that it's unnecessary for me to consider the quality of the composition when deciding how to vote. That said, it also rewards the eye to look around the picture frame. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. --Cayambe (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like trains. dllu (t,c) 23:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support At first I asked "Why the spot color"? Then I looked more closely ... Daniel Case (talk) 05:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 15:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nothing more to say. SDKmac (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 21:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the nomination, Thennicke! Since you seem to like that one, I've also uploaded the grand view (not the same train): File:RhB ABe 8-12 Langwieser Viaduct with Langwies from Rongg.jpg --Kabelleger (talk) 20:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kabelleger: Excellent, thank you! Although the shadow in the lower right is a shame. I do have a couple of your recent Peru uploads in my to-nominate list, by the way, so don't be surprised to see them here as well :P -- Thennicke (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Łupków (Лупків) - train station in winter 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2017 at 08:36:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 08:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 08:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I think it could be cropped in on the left a bit more, to reinforce the square the station portico creates. Daniel Case (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support PumpkinSky talk 22:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing spécial neither outstanding.--Jebulon (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would not crop because of the several colors of snow --Neptuul (talk) 08:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 09:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ----fedaro (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The pole and the gutter pipe are disturbing. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I definitely respect the idea of this picture. I think it would have probably worked for me if it had been taken straight, and not at a slant. But as it is, I basically feel the same way as Jebulon - good, sensitive pic but not IMO an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Warm sun rays & snow caught my attention. -- Pofka (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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