Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/April 2020

File:Pedro Figari - Pericón - Google Art Project-edited.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2020 at 15:27:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/People#Groups
Info created by Pedro Figari - uploaded by DcoetzeeBot - improved/nominated by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 15:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 15:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment tilted. Charles (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done thanks!! --Ezarateesteban 17:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Info Gallery fixed. You need to really check out and find the exact gallery and section since the FPCBot is now sorting pictures automatically. Go to the gallery page and copy the page name and heading to get the spelling right. For more info see this. --Cart (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not one of the Google Art Project's better digitisations. The detail looks quite blurry - in the best painting digitisations I've seen, a lot of the fine brushwork is visible, but we are a fair distance away from that here. I think there are some JPEG artefacts too. I don't think I can forgive these issues given that the resolution isn't that high (even lower when you consider that a lot of the picture is taken up with the frame). Cmao20 (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not detailed enough --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao. And because of the frame. --pandakekok9 07:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 22:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dryobates pubescens.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2020 at 23:00:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Picidae (Woodpeckers)
Info: female downy woodpecker (Dryobates pubescens) feeding on sunflower seeds. All by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a very nice shot, but a "studio" photo where a person holds the bird doesn't impress me as much as a photo taken in the wild.--Peulle (talk) 08:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The shot is nice and I think that's also good to have FPs of animals captured with people. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 09:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm fine with the idea, but the bird's not sharp enough. Charles (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this is not a "studio photo". The bird is wild, the photo was captured at a local conservation area, Peulle. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that the bird is not in its natural habitat, and that the photo is staged.--Peulle (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A forest is not a natural habitat for a woodpecker? Cool, learned something new today. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wild, but very habituated. Nothing wrong in that. Charles (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Draceane, something a bit different. Cmao20 (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. --Fischer.H (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Wild" does not necessarily mean "will not handfeed under any circumstances". Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spurzem (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Woman sewing a face mask with a Singer machine 13.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2020 at 04:34:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Machines
Info All by me. Result of the huge boredom during the lockdown. The hands are actually my mother's. -- T.Bednarz (talk) 04:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- T.Bednarz (talk) 04:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please nominate only one file. Alternatives are accepted for the same picture presented differently (crop, post-processing, etc.). This is your work to choose :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe image 09 is the best of the set. Acidentally prepared a FP nomination before I became aware of this one. I'm not sure, what's the correct process now.--MB-one (talk) 10:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would prefer 09, as suggested by MB-one, or this one (13), not 12. --Aristeas (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Info The best way would be for MB-one to add the nomination to the list and for T.Bednarz to {{withdraw}} this nomination as soon as the new nom from the series is posted. Or with reference to the comments on this nom, it can be {{FPX}}-ed as soon as the new nom is posted and it has two or more support votes. --Cart (talk) 11:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info All by T.Bednarz --T.Bednarz (talk) 04:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Not sure which one to nominate. --T.Bednarz (talk) 04:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I decided to withdraw this nomination in advantage of this one, which was created by MB-one. I also added the nomination to the FPC candidate list. So let's discuss there. --T.Bednarz (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nighthawks by Edward Hopper 1942.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2020 at 07:20:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/People#Groups
Info created by Edward Hopper - uploaded by Canoe1967 - nominated by S. DÉNIEL
Support -- S. DÉNIEL (talk) 07:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks good to me, and of course it's the museum's own reproduction. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Ahhh! One of the modern classics. I don't know how many books I've read where this painting is mentioned. I had no idea it had a compatible license. A good find. --Cart (talk) 09:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support An absolute classic. --Peulle (talk) 10:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cbrescia (talk) 10:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I liked this painting back in elementary school art class. It appealed to my non-artistic personality. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Iconic painting, definitely should be FP. Cmao20 (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Solid reproduction of an iconic painting. --Aristeas (talk) 11:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Andrei (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Claus 14:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 15:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/People#Groups

File:South-western black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis occidentalis) female.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2020 at 11:51:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family : Rhinocerotidae (Rhinoceros)
Info The Wikipedia article says that you can find this type of rhino in Namibia and Angola, but I believe they were confirmed as extinct in Angola in 2018. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent photo. Cmao20 (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I could see cropping out part of the background at the top, but that's your call. This is an important document and a great photo of the rhino. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think it's nice to keep some sky if you can. Charles (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Another option you could consider is to blur the bokeh more. It currently has a very active blur, which is somewhat distracting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Would like to support the photo due to the rarity of the rhino, but the bokeh is quite distracting and the crop is not ideal: there should be more sky or no sky at all. —kallerna (talk) 07:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support, better now. —kallerna (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support But I'd also prefer the crop proposed by Ikan Kekek --Llez (talk) 10:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

cropped version uploaded, with bokeh blurred slightly —kallerna Charles (talk) 10:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I do like this better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent. --Aristeas (talk) 11:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 08:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exactly how you're supposed to take this type of photo. Daniel Case (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals#Family : Rhinocerotidae (Rhinoceros)

File:Apple cake with vanilla ice cream 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2020 at 20:14:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Food
Info I think most of us can use some comfort food right now. So whatever the outcome of the nom, here is the recipe. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the recipe. (But IMO food photo and wide angle are not a good match, and I also think the shadow needs to be mitigated). - Benh (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow lifted a bit. --Cart (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looks delicious! I think they could use some of this on the front page, too. Very high resolution. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Adding the recipe was a lovely idea! Cmao20 (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 06:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support "dl"? How very Swedish of you! ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. It's the traditional unit used in our recipes. --Cart (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 11:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sweeeeeeet! Excellent job getting the warmth of the colors on the ice cream and pie without sacrificing the coolness of the tablecloth. Daniel Case (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but for FP I would expect a professional presentation of the cake (plate, tablecloth,...). The light conditions are also not optimal. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I understand and I was contemplating styling it, but for a piece of apple pie I think that the cozy homemade feeling of a simple checkered kitchen table cloth was best. --Cart (talk) 10:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per Uoaei1. Btw, I like the photo and the cake even more ;-) -- -donald- (talk) 08:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the homemade feeling of this photo. --pandakekok9 11:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop really bothers me, i saw it better in second option, but...this positioning of food isn't so good. You could correct shadow on right side with some A3 paper or even A4, or buy cheap reflector. In this shot at least i would crop some right and above. --Mile (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did use my reflector on this photo, or the shadow would have been even deeper and the table would have nearly no light at all. :-) Some shadow in a photo is good, otherwise it will look very flat. As for the crop, people here usually object if a shadow is cut so I included it in this photo. --Cart (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Sometime i put timer and turn reflector to have bigger reflect area, makes better than flat surface.--Mile (talk) 08:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a good technique that works on normal subjects when you have the time to do it. You have no idea how fast you have to work when you focus stack ice cream! And neither had I. :-) It melts and shifts soooo fast. This was the third slice of cake before I got it right. --Cart (talk) 09:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So there was rush, i would open the window. Get some extra time. --Mile (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support As said before, looks delicious. --Aristeas (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I should be doing more home photoshoots... :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Look delicious, but the photo itself is quite common. There is nothing outstanding.--Milseburg (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I feel bad about opposing many of Cart's images . . . but I don't see what's so special about the photo. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Uoaei1. Also not sure about the white balance, and seems to be slightly underexposed. —kallerna (talk) 05:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Milseburg - common image, nothing outstanding. -- Karelj (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I don't see anything special about a piece of cake that would justify a promotion as FP. --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rhacophorus kio - mating.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2020 at 18:15:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians#Family_:_Rhacophoridae_(Shrub_Frogs)
Info created & uploaded by Rushenb - nominated by Ivar (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice closeup! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite the reflections. 'In amplexus' would be a more accurate discription than 'mating'. He's not doing anything in the image. Just hanging on and waiting. All part of the mating process. Charles (talk) 10:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent and very good quality -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 10:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Séeberger, Petites musiciennes de rue - CMN.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2020 at 20:54:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1910-1920
Info created by Séeberger - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Info Gallery fixed. You need to really check out and find the exact gallery and section since the FPCBot is now sorting pictures automatically. Go to the gallery page and copy the page name and heading to get the spelling right. For more info see this. --Cart (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Moving, especially for me as a fellow musician, and well composed. It would be nice to link the original on the Centre des monuments nationaux' website directly on the file page. A search turned up this. Would it work to link that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Paris 16 (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cart (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Focus seems to be on the column but I'm not going to be too picky with a hundred years old, well composed photo carrying a strong message. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Grtek (talk) 10:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Andrei (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical#1910-1920

File:Šumava National Park (the cross - Jesus Christ).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2020 at 14:22:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Czech_Republic
Info created by Adámoz - uploaded by Adámoz - nominated by Adámoz -- Adámoz (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adámoz (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - No great composition: A tree stump in the foreground, a random-looking right crop, and absolutely empty sky on top. And did this pass QIC yet? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice subject but there's a couple of flaws here, including the blown highlights on the cross itself, some purple CA at the bottom, and also it would have been better to wait until the people had gone away before taking the shot. Cmao20 (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of the issues mentioned above and it didn't pass QIC -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Diomedea sanfordi - SE Tasmania 2019.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2020 at 23:12:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Diomedeidae (Albatross)
Info created & uploaded by User:JJ Harrison - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I really like the wing extension, and this is extremely sharp for a photo of a bird in flight. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blown highlights unfortunately and it is lost in the background. Charles (talk) 07:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:JJ Harrison, if you'd like to address Charles' objections, please go ahead. Charles, I have to respect your expertise in shooting birds. I agree that the photo could be improved if the highlights are reduced somewhat, though I hadn't thought about it because I was busy being impressed, but I don't know how anyone could lose a mostly black and partly white bird in a bright blue background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a blue background is needed for a black and white bird. Doesn't work on days like this. Charles (talk) 09:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, so I don't really get it, but I imagine you feel like a darker blue sky would provide a better background, and therefore, this isn't as good as this type of photo could be. Darker blue would contrast less with the black, though? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination, good sharpness for a bird in flight. Cmao20 (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: not too happy with the overexposed parts as well, but I think this can be forgiven for a dynamic subject --The Cosmonaut (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. Too-bright bird against too-pale sky. Daniel Case (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good shot but unfortunately partially overexposed. --Fischer.H (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It seems clear this won't pass unless perhaps if User:JJ Harrison tones down the highlights, but it's under consideration until April 1, so I'll wait a little longer and see if JJ logs into Commons between now and then. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:2Fi02473 Pont national US Army retouchée.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2020 at 12:59:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1940-1950
Info created by US army photograph - uploaded - nominated by S. DÉNIEL
Support -- S. DÉNIEL (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - If I understand correctly from here, the original format was 250 x 200 mm. At that size, the photo looks good. It's well-composed, and it's certainly an interesting and historically important document that gives witness to some of the terrible destruction of World War II. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 09:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 11:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical#1940-1950

File:Dichroitisches Prisma -- 2020 -- 5123.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2020 at 08:21:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 08:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 08:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question I don't get this XRay. If it's light why does it look noisy and blurry? I am probably missing the point. Does the title translate as dichroic prism. But there must be more than one. Charles (talk) 09:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the reason of the light, it's the background, a black cardboard with a rough surface. Without the cardboard nothing would be seen. I don't have a studio or a fog machine. --XRay ^talk 10:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the effect is strange! Charles (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, having another look at this, what's happening with the white light? It isn't passing through the prism? Charles (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article about this. --Cart (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Grtek (talk) 10:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Info Charles asked, here is a longer explantation: To explain what is shown: The prism lies on a black cardboard with a rough surface to make the light visible. The light from a flashlight with white light is focused by a lens (telephoto lens) onto the prism from below (right), with a small part of the white light passing the prism. I added the explantion to the file description too.

thanks. sorry for all the questions. Charles (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Sorry for the missing description. We've made the photo with two persons, one for the camera, one for the lens and the flashlight. ("Flashlight" is a interesting translation for "Taschenlampe" in German, because it isn't a flash.) --XRay ^talk 16:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Flashlight - Etymology :-) --Cart (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cart (talk) 11:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting - Benh (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing actually :) So eye catchy... and It's like pastel pencil over a black paper. - Benh (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning effect. -- B2Belgium (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely has plenty of 'wow-factor'. Cmao20 (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original Poco a poco (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--84.212.143.249 10:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC) Not registered user. --A.Savin 19:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 19:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Andrei (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Pretty, and a great idea. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support almost a bit "Man-Ray-y" --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 08:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 15:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 11:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Potsdam 50 Pfennig 1921 Mehlsäcke.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2020 at 12:12:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Others#Money
Info An interesting historical document as being issued in the Weimar Republic, it includes a mockery of the militarism in the German Empire. Besides, upright banknote designs are quite rare. Reproduced, uploaded and nominated by Palauenc05 -- Palauenc05 (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Info Gallery fixed. Pictures of money still goes to 'Money', not 'Historical', as I have corrected many times for you. You need to really check out and find the exact gallery and section since the FPCBot is now sorting pictures automatically. Go to the gallery page and copy the page name and heading to get the spelling right. For more info see this. --Cart (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, an interesting curiosity. Cmao20 (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spurzem (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The National Hospital for the Paralysed and Epileptic, Queen Wellcome V0013481-restored.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2020 at 19:11:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Exteriors#Streets
Info created by James Akerman - uploaded by Fæ - restored/nominated by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 19:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 19:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Info And once again: Gallery fixed. Please try to get this right, you need to really check out and find the exact gallery and section since the FPCBot is now sorting pictures automatically. Go to the gallery page and copy the page name and heading to get the spelling right. For more info see this. --Cart (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Interesting, but needs more restoration, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unfortunately per Ikan, the smudginess of this at the edges doesn't match up to the best restorations on Commons. Cmao20 (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose physical dimensions have not been provided, and the restoration looks like a WIP. Far right side of page is dark, top left tree and fold down the middle repair not complete. Visible dirt at top right in clouds by chimney. New damage caused by restoration at the top left corner border and bottom right of image on the ground. The might be FA-worthy, but will likely require far more work and denoise AI. Uploader may find it helpful to review current featured pictures that have been repaired using Special:search/incategory:"Featured pictures on Wikimedia Commons" insource:retouched insource:pd--BevinKacon (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination thanks!!! Ezarateesteban 17:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dancing Jewel (Platycypha caligata) teneral male.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2020 at 14:45:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family_:_Chlorocyphidae
Info I found this damselfly (about 35mm long) in the rain forest created by the Victoria Falls. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice one, good work in getting the damselfly sharp all over. Worth adding the size to the image description? Cmao20 (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question off topic. Does the 100-400 MkII still autofocus with the extender attached? Thanks :) - Benh (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but quite a bit slower. Not much good for flying animals. Charles (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really superb! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 08:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed superb. --Aristeas (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:First order Fresnel lens at Point Reyes lighthouse.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2020 at 18:53:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Optical devices
Info Created and uploaded by Frank Schulenburg - nominated by W.carter -- Cart (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love Frank's photos of the old restored lighthouse at Point Reyes, especially this photo of the lens. The colors and details are so beautiful. It's the kind of photo I would like to print and hang on a wall at home.

Since the photo is of the lens and not the light device, I've put it in the 'Optical devices' section and not 'Lamps', hope that's ok. -- Cart (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sharp and beautiful natural colours! --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 08:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: quite a lot of technical issues: lots of overexposed parts on the right, strong CAs on the right, strange artifacts (dust spots?) at the base on the left. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The small things you call artifacts, were shadows left over since I corrected the perspective for Frank. My bad, now fixed (refresh the page). The highlights add to the natural look and I'm not sure removing any more CA would be a good thing. I wouldn't call it "strong" and the color is so close to that of the glass so you risk getting those ugly gray areas. Better to leave it be, it doesn't disturb the overall impression. --Cart (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the large gray blotches, not the shadows; added notes. I could live with the overexposed areas on the flanks, but the central ones, in the lens, are disturbing. And I don't quite get the argument that removing CAs may make things worse. Sure, any post-processing may make things worse. That's why we hone our skills to improve things. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, two dust spots removed and some CA. I think I managed to avoid intruding on the glass color. What you read as shadow noise, I see as paint texture so I let that be. --Cart (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ermell (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Sorry, I had no idea of how a Fresnel lens looked (english article and google image search) and I find that this picture doesn't help me picture it. And the base is very prominent compared to the lens itself. I can understand it may be hard to get a better point of view. - Benh (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not technically perfect but a very interesting photo. Cmao20 (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: new version is a definite improvement, but the overexposed areas are still too distracting for me. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Interesting and IMO worth a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nieuw blad van de Berenklauw Heracleum. 24-03-2020. (d.j.b) 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2020 at 18:15:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Apiaceae (Carrot family)
Info Heracleum New leaf of the Heracleum squeezes out of the cold forest floor. The width of the leaf in this photo is 9 cm. The plant is biennial and can reach more than 2 meters in height.
All by me -- Famberhorst (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good to me. Cmao20 (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 12:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Family : Apiaceae (Carrot family)

File:Singapore Marina Bay Dusk 2018-02-27.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2020 at 16:47:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Singapore
Info all by Benh (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Benh (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although shooting time should be corrected. --Ivar (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops yes, 12:39 is the CET time. I fixed. Thanks. - Benh (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The moving boat is unfortunate (but at least I can see where we had supper to watch the laser light show) Charles (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could be cloned out I guess, but I think I'll save my effort on a full next shooting session when I return there again (wanted to this year, but will be hard now!). Or if other reviewers agree... - Benh (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like I don't have time Charles, so the boat is gone FYI. - Benh (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 10:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A shame that Marina Bay Sands got cropped, but still a good photo. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll nominate another panorama soon :-) - Benh (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Strong noise and an unfortunate sexual pose distracting --Wilfredor (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Iifar, The Cosmonaut, Ermell, Podzemnik, Frank Schulenburg, Fischer.H, W.carter, Tournasol7, Kestreltail, and Aristeas: I restitched it (moved viewpoint to the left), and it changes a bit the composition, so you might want to reconsider your votes... Very sorry for the annoyance. - Benh (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Really sorry to do this since I almost always support your pics but this one doesn't rise to FP level to me. The buildings on the right are not especially sharp and I think I'd expect more detail for an FP-level night shot. I also can't quite shake the impression that the horizon slopes upwards towards the right. I like it overall but I'm not sure it's as good as other FP cityscapes. Cmao20 (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be sorry :) - Benh (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Beautiful, but could you possibly sharpen the buildings on the other side a bit? I'm a bit doubtful this is sharp enough to meet our current standards of FPs for this kind of view, though based on the voting so far, I'd have to admit it seems to be. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't... and the last change I brought made things worse (since it stretched the buildings). Many things I did wrong with that photo, underexposed, shot jpeg only... so yes it's noisy and unsharp. What you get when in a hurry... I like it though I think it's OK when looked as a whole, but yes, probably not when looked at pixel level, and clearly inferior to the one by Basile (very nice one). - Benh (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose If it's 'clearly inferior' and you admit it's short on quality, why the nomination? Charles (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlesjsharp: It's inferior to a very good pic in terms of quality, but it's acceptable I think. If you downscale to 15 or 10 mpix, it's sharp. And I like the composition. I don't have mitigating reasons. I screwed with my camera setup, and was in a hurry. - Benh (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And don't let others opinions influence u. I'm fine with any fair review. They can only help improving. - Benh (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're a good guy. So I will mildly Oppose this nomination as not quite IMO an FP (though it looks like it will be one), but I love the larger panorama you linked above in a reply to Kestreltail and will support it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question @Wilfredor: "Unfortunate sexual pose"? Where? —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

follow the railing and you will find it --Wilfredor (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Frizzle sizzle (40519s).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2020 at 03:12:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family_:_Asparagaceae
Info Albuca spiralis "Frizzle Sizzle" - three phases of flowering (focus stack 29 frames... overkill, but oh well) - all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp, pretty and nice clean background. Cmao20 (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. Good photo, very silly plant name. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the background doesn't work for me. Charles (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Daniel Case (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clean work but the light is quite boring and the contrast is too low. I think the background should be white? Information about the used program would be helpful and the stacking template should be added.--Ermell (talk) 08:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Une proposition : File:Frizzle sizzle (40519s) v2.jpg S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC) n'hésitez pas a l'effacer si ça ne vous convient pas.[reply]

S. DÉNIEL, please do not display other images on a nomination since the Bot will read them as an 'Alternative'. Always use a link. If you meant it as an alternative, please ask the nominator first. --Cart (talk) 10:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've uploaded a new version that adjusts the white balance and brightens the subject a little. It's rather late in the process to just switch it, and not a substantial enough change to propose an alternative, so I'll just link to it here (I've reverted to the original for now). Curious what others think. (btw thanks, S. DÉNIEL, for the alternative, but I wanted to work from the raw files and prefer the roomier crop :) ). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I prefer that, but it's a kind of fakery, isn't it? I still don't really understand where the line between acceptable edits and fakery is drawn at FPC. Substituting a separate sky is unacceptable, but making the background a different color than it was is fine and recommended? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. I think we all have our subjective lines. In this case, however, the background is a white posterboard, so any sort of off-white shading is a result of light/camera/postprocessing. I'm content to defer to others about which version to use, but will default to the original nomination since it was changed kind of late. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Ermell. —kallerna (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The focus is really sharp but I agree on the light and background with Ermell and Charles. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 11:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmao20, Ikan Kekek, Llez, and Agnes Monkelbaan: @Charlesjsharp, Daniel Case, Johann Jaritz, Ermell, and S. DÉNIEL: @W.carter, Kallerna, and Draceane: - ok I've gone ahead and reinstated the newer [white balanced] version. the difference is not substantial, so I don't suspect it'll change many votes, but pinging to be safe. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm fine with this, since you explained what the background is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still not right for me. Charles (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Ermell.-- Karelj (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]

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

File:Lake Mystery, Canterbury, New Zealand 05.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2020 at 07:14:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/New_Zealand#Canterbury_(Waitaha)
Info created & uploaded by User:Podzemnik - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I know some of you are getting tired of beautiful New Zealand mountain landscape photos by Podzemnik, but I love the snow-packed mountains, their reflection and the balanced form so much I can't pass up nominating this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 08:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I quite like this one. I wish we could go tramping again here! --Podzemnik (talk) 08:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You will. For now, just stay safe and healthy! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cart (talk) 09:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Just wondering how big is this lake :) Gnosis (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A striking image because of the reflection. Cmao20 (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition and very good light.--Peulle (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a bit tilted anti-clockwise, no? --A.Savin 19:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it? The reflection is spot on. Charles (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very peaceful. --Aristeas (talk) 11:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Grtek (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 12:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 11:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Speyer - Altpörtel - Blick auf Domfassade und Kirchtürme mit Abendsonne.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2020 at 18:55:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Germany
Info A view of the western facade of Speyer Cathedral, Germany. I like the golden evening light and I also enjoy how carefully composed this shot is, with the buildings on the street acting as a leading line to draw the eye gently towards the cathedral. There is a bit of unsharpness in the foreground, but please consider that a) the main subject, the cathedral, is very sharp and detailed, and b) this is a high-resolution photo, nearly 40mpx. Created by Aristeas - uploaded by Aristeas - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A real Golden-hour photo, very good! --A.Savin 19:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 07:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you very much for nominating ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 10:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 13:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 01:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:St Edmundsbury Cathedral Nave 1, Suffolk, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2020 at 18:36:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#United Kingdom
Info The view from the nave looking east in St Edmundsbury Cathedral in Suffolk, England. This church was mostly constructed in the early sixteenth-century by John Wastell, a mason who also worked on the famous chapel at King's College, Cambridge. It was made a cathedral in 1914, and much of the current architecture is C20th Gothic revival. IMO one of Diliff's best, and almost 70mpx of sharp detail. created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Need vertical fix and the foreground on bottom are out of deep of field --Wilfredor (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Looks good to me, but I'd like to know what you feel needs to be fixed about the verticals before I vote. Maybe I'll see what you see if you explain what to look for. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IMO this is something of a harsh critique Wilfredor. You are right that the foreground at the bottom is out of the depth of field, but this is true for plenty of church FPs, see this one which you nominated yourself and which passed by an overwhelming 16/0/0 margin but for which the same criticism holds, if anything more so. As for the verticals, I can't really see any significant issue, but it's worth keeping in mind that the pillars in some of these churches aren't perfectly straight anyway. See this where the third pillar on the right visibly bows out slightly. Cmao20 (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added a note about of the vertical problem --Wilfredor (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not the fault of the photographer in that case. Your naked eyes would likely see the same. - Benh (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good for me. --Aristeas (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good. A lot of work and brilliant result.--Ermell (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 05:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe the two first rows of benches could be cropped, greatly improving it (IMO). - Benh (talk) 09:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'd support the proposed crop, but still an FP to me. Now that the verticals "problem" is shown in a note, I still don't see the issue. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I like a crop quite as radical as the one Benh has suggested as it cuts a bit too much of the floor off for me and leaves the composition looking slightly unbalanced, too much ceiling and not enough floor. Have left a note for a slightly less radical crop that I prefer, I'll put it up as an alternative if others prefer it. Cmao20 (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 11:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 01:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dülmen, Börnste, Sonnenaufgang -- 2020 -- 6080-4.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2020 at 05:54:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#North_Rhine-Westphalia
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 05:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 05:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The layers do not seem to be properly aligned as you can see from the ghost images on the branches. Is that fixable?--Ermell (talk) 06:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm seeing posterization lines in the sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Sorry, I the ghosts at the branches are not fixable without much effort. It's a HDRI and it was a very windy morning. --XRay ^talk 06:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /XRay ^talk 06:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Börnste, Alpakas -- 2020 -- 5362.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2020 at 18:24:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Order_:_Artiodactyla_(Even-toed_Ungulates)
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 18:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 18:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid the out-of-focus nose and white background at the top ruin it for me. 20:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I've another with a sharp nose - but unsharp eyes. IMO the sharpness of the eyes are important. --XRay ^talk 04:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Charles, this is a good shot and a solid QI but the imperfections he notes preclude it from FP to me. Cmao20 (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose +1--Peulle (talk) 07:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thank you for your reviews. --XRay ^talk 05:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /XRay ^talk 05:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schlumbergera × buckleyi flower.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2020 at 00:14:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Cactaceae
Info: flower of Schlumbergera × buckleyi, a house plant; took it outside for a more pleasant background. All by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull light and I find the motley background unappealing and in this case wrong. For house plants it is normally best to find some structure associated with houses, like a wall, stone, wood or something. Like the two existing FPs of these flowers. If you need compo ideas, check out some online flower shops and nick ideas from their photos. --Cart (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Overall good imaage quality but I find myself agreeing with Cart that the light is very dull, also it looks to me that the highlights have been pulled back too far. Cmao20 (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Cart. --GRDN711 (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Podiceps grisegena Humber Bay Park Toronto (crop).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2020 at 11:56:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Podicipedidae (Grebes)
Info created & uploaded by Mykola Swarnyk - edited & nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I suggest my edited version for File:Podiceps grisegena Humber Bay Park Toronto.jpg, which is displayed below as an alt. -- Tomer T (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I preffer this cut but it look a bit satured --Wilfredor (talk) 12:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Colors look off/too blue/over-saturated in both to me. Not sure if it's supposed to be a moody feature... --Cart (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I opposed at QI because it's too blue. Charles (talk) 12:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It does seem too blue to me. Also I think the crop at the bottom is too tight, the bottom of the reflection of the bird's head is nearly out of the frame. Good, but not IMO at the standard for FP bird photos. Cmao20 (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Basotxerri (talk) 09:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alt (original version)[edit]

Info created & uploaded by Mykola Swarnyk - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I opposed at QI because it's too blue. Charles (talk) 12:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Basotxerri (talk) 09:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Also not all that sharp. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Careening of a pirogue on a sand beach, at golden hour, in Si Phan Don, Laos.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2020 at 03:01:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport#Boats
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I didn't know until now that "careening" is a technical word in this context. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting. --Podzemnik (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice! And good timing. - Benh (talk) 05:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 07:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support It´s tilted - the boat. --Milseburg (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mt Somers Range from Mt Taylor.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2020 at 00:28:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/New_Zealand#Canterbury_(Waitaha)
Info All by me. It's a very dry location called Mt Somers Range, picture taken from Mt Taylor (2333m). -- Podzemnik (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support just a bit sad about the lighting (but I can understand you cannot plan all ur hikes to be at all places of interest at interesting times). - Benh (talk) 09:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Benh: I'll make sure that next time I'll nominate something with more interesting lighting! --Podzemnik (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The consensus is overwhelming, but I am missing anything "wow" in this particular view. Anyway good photo. --Grtek (talk) 10:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Grtek: Thanks for the vote. For me the wow is that it was like 8 hours off trail adventure to get up there But I get that the picture should speak for itself without a story behind it. I'll try to focus on photos with more wow effect / special light. All the best, --Podzemnik (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Grtek. As someone once said about Poco a poco's work, we have so many of Podzemnik's New Zealand landscapes that we can be selective about which ones we choose to feature. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support The otherworldy barrenness of this landscape easily sets it apart from Pod's other ones ... I expect Captain Kirk and the away team to materialize in the foreground somewhere. Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose light conditions were not favorable and per Grtek, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 06:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above --Poco a poco (talk) 10:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I find these arid mountains interesting, and I have no problem with the light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support --Milseburg (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. -- Karelj (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 08:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Grtek. —kallerna (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:North Butte County Courthouse at sunset.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2020 at 22:13:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#United_States
Info The modern two-story North Butte County Courthouse in the Meriam Park area in Chico, California (Architect: TSK Architects). C/u/n by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Andrei (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 02:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Saw that one. Could have nominated it myself if I hadn't some backlog of self nom. Great architectural shot with a nice lighting. - Benh (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 07:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 09:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very atmospheric light. --Aristeas (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 12:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colors. I would crop few pixles in bottom, to start with with diagonal line. --Mile (talk) 12:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cropped name and blurred flags don't help it. Charles (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus 14:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Axel ^(talk) 10:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rutherford Hill Wine Cave-1369.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2020 at 22:07:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Winemaking
Info Oak barrels in the wine cave of Rutherford Hill Winery in Napa County, California. The “red band” on some wine barrels is the residue of spilt red wine. C/u/n by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 07:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 09:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 12:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice lighting. Cmao20 (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cbrescia (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Seven Pandas (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 11:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looked at this a few times! Charles (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Worm's-eye view of Tokyo Skytree with vertical symmetry impression, a sunny day, in Japan.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2020 at 03:05:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Japan
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 07:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 12:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 11:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gewürztraminer P1120136.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2020 at 15:06:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants # Vitales/Family:Vitacea
Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be better just to have one complete bunch (and no building in the background). Charles (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good sharp photo but a bit compositionally messy for me with the leaves covering parts of the grapes. Cmao20 (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao20. Beautiful grapes but not a great composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others ... harsh light, too much in the frame. Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jerusalem-2013(2)-Temple Mount-Dome of the Chain (dome interior).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2020 at 15:21:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings/Ceilings#Israel
Info created by Godot13 - uploaded by Godot13 - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why not a square crop? Charles (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In a limited space, it appears to be challenging to get a proper angle --165.225.207.43 16:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It may be hard - even impossible - but this is an unsatisfying crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think a tighter square crop of the middle might have been (and still could be) better. Daniel Case (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pink Robin - Mount Field National Park.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2020 at 15:19:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Petroicidae_(Australasian_Robins)
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Ivar (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very cute! --Andrei (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work again, cute indeed and sharply focussed where it counts. Cmao20 (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awww - Benh (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Charles (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support So cute! --Podzemnik (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 06:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Axel ^(talk) 10:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Cmao. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 11:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A shaded border around the chest is observed, possibly originated in the noise elimination process --Wilfredor (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see it. Charles (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cbrescia (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Revëut simboi dla Pascion Dlieja San Durich Urtijëi.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2020 at 20:54:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings/Ceilings#Italy
Info Arch with symbols of the Passion of Jeus Christ. On top right and left symbols of the Evangelists Marc and Luke. On the bottom middle the Sacrifice of Isaac in the parish church of Urtijëi. All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great! How many photos were stitched for this? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Info 6 photos being the lens a Hasselblad XCD 3.5/120 Macro --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 06:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 09:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Staggering detail. Charles (talk) 10:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Charles. --Aristeas (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak oppose~~ Beautiful and high quality. But it bothers me that the arch is cut off on the left. Sorry! -- B2Belgium (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Cropped on the right to make it more symmetrical. @B2Belgium: Thanks for the hint --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 13:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely Support now. Thank you! -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well done.--Ermell (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Extraordinarily detailed and sharp photo. I wish I could see the bottom bit of the Sacrifice of Isaac painting, but still good. Cmao20 (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SL Kandy asv2020-01 img34 Sacred Tooth Temple.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2020 at 14:40:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Sri Lanka
Info Wall and octagonal tower (Paththirippuwa) of the Temple of the Tooth in Kandy ----- all by A.Savin --A.Savin 14:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 14:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful place. Cmao20 (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed beautiful. --Aristeas (talk) 11:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Festessen Kaiser Wilhelm 1898 (front page).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2020 at 07:18:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Others#Historical
Info Restored, uploaded and nominated by Palauenc05 -- Palauenc05 (talk) 07:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 07:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A beautiful item. Cmao20 (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20, though there are some stray bits of color at the margins that could be removed in further restoration. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spurzem (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Für Speisekarten bin ich immer zu haben, mache auch selbst welche bei unseren Einladungen. --Schnobby (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Restaurants, Place du Tertre, Paris 30 September 2019.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2020 at 09:37:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#France
Info created by Pierre Blaché (Flickr) - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 09:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 09:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, love the mood. —kallerna (talk) 11:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per kallerna. --A.Savin 13:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice find! One of the most unmistakeably Parisian photos I've seen here. Cmao20 (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Many ghosts and moving branches, but very atmospheric and definitely Parisian. ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it does a good job at capturing the mood of the place - Benh (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! -- Spurzem (talk) 21:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great nightime lighting Seven Pandas (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great job. Ahmad^talk 00:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! -- -donald- (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 09:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Andrei (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charming. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- B2Belgium (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bittersweet reminder of what we are foregoing ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful! --Yann (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Killarnee (T•1•2) 18:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Piscinas volcánicas naturales, Porto Moniz, Madeira, Portugal, 2019-05-30, DD 76.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2020 at 19:12:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Portugal
Info Natural lava pools, Porto Moniz, Madeira, Portugal. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sky is too dull, sunny parts are overexposed. —kallerna (talk) 08:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I agree with Kallerna. Resolution and image quality are super as usual but the light is pretty dull here, it looks a bit flat and uninteresting. Perhaps a wider panorama from this spot would have more 'wow-factor' for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Ok, looks like it isn't really making your heart beat quicker Poco a poco (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Poco a poco (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Splash made by a girl jumping into the sea in Röe Sandvik, Lysekil, Sweden 1.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2020 at 13:24:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Liquid
Info All by me, -- Cart (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment April 1st was four days ago, Cart! Charles (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I promise, there is a girl down there in the water. Seriously, I was mostly interested in capturing the splash and I figured it would be best to be upfront with what caused it. --Cart (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nothing special: easy subject without especially interesting composition. —kallerna (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is fun. You don't see water of this shape every day. It suggests movement, action, like something happened but you don't know what. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
moderate support - This is like a good drip painting, except it may be accidental when a drip painting produces a good form, whereas the photographer had to consciously determine this was a good form to nominate it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per kallerna and splash is cropped on all sides. --Ivar (talk) 05:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
moderate support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 10:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ivar Poco a poco (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kallerna. Sorry Cart but this time I just can't see what you're seeing. I agree with Podzemnik that it suggests movement and action, and I see that the photo could be useful as an illustration, but it doesn't wow me, I feel like it's a fairly easy shot and that any splash in water would look pretty similar. Cmao20 (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cmao20, I think you are reading too much into this. Sometimes a splash is just a splash. :-) I had in mind to catch a big, sharp, hi-res splash, complete with drops and liquid sheet for the Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Liquid section. Many of the images in that section are not really wow-y and more encyclopedic, take a look. Catching such a splash is a bit harder than it looks. You need a very sunny day and clear water for a sharp photo. Add to that some kids willing to do splashes. Most splashes were not "photogenic" and only a couple came out as good compos. This one had a 'top' at approximately one third and a liquid sheet going diagonally in a good way, so I selected it for nominating. And most important: You need to come up with the idea of actually doing a photo like this. How may of the FPC-ers here have done that? --Cart (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose How many FPC-ers? So we're not as creative(?) as you, are we? Best not to rubbish the rest of us when you offer this composition as an FPC. Charles (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Amiable as always Charles and as usual reading a comment from the worst possible angle. You needn't worry, you don't have to see this anymore. --Cart (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anthurium (Flamingoplant) 12-08-2019 (actm) 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2020 at 05:46:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Araceae (Arum family) Anthurium
Info Anthurium (Flamingo plant). A popular houseplant in the Netherlands. The photo was taken in the house.
All by me -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nice. How big is the flower? Also, why is the category "Unidentified Anthurium"? Is there a way to identify it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: The width of the flower in this photo is 8 cm. I first used category "Anthurium". That category was later changed by someone else to "Unidentified Anthurium". The information supplied with houseplants is not always sufficient.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After a long search, this is probably a Anthurium scherzerianum 'Dutch Treat'. A cultivar of Anthurium scherzerianum.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Grtek (talk) 10:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support but one would have thought a specific identification would be much more useful for FP. Is there anyone on Commons who might be able to provide that info? Cmao20 (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmao20, Ikan Kekek, and Grtek: Category adjusted.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I beleive this is Anthurium andraeanum --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice closeup and pretty flower. Drawback - the light and more so the background are a bit dull. But still an FP to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 04:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan, also the composition should be centered (or less centered). —kallerna (talk) 05:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan--Andrei (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like a light and the background. Good anough for QI, but not for FP, sorry. Tournasol7 (talk) 07:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: would prefer a different background. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Family : Araceae (Arum family)

File:Ephippiorhynchus senegalensis - Réserve africaine de Sigean 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2020 at 10:13:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Superordo_:_Neognathae#Ordo_:_Ciconiiformes#Familia_:_Ciconiidae#Genus_:_Ephippiorhynchus
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Unfortunately, juveniles don't have such bright colours (and it's a shame that the feathers are in the shade). 10:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Support, tending to weak. I think the noise reduction might be a little much here, the feathers are not quite as detailed as I would expect, especially since this is ISO 100. However, this is a high-resolution photo so I can forgive some small technical downsides. Cmao20 (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - FP for me. Cmao20 makes valid points, but it's well composed, the beak and legs are very detailed and I like the bird's expression. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: per Cmao20. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but too much in shadow. It would have been better if the sun were just a little more to the front. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --KaiBorgeest (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per King, too much in shadow resulting in lack of details Poco a poco (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Superordo_:_Neognathae#Ordo_:_Ciconiiformes#Familia_:_Ciconiidae#Genus_:_Ephippiorhynchus

File:Igreja de Nossa Senhora da Candelária por Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (04).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2020 at 06:20:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings/Ceilings#Brazil
Info all by me -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 06:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 06:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A very beautiful place but it bothers me that it's not centered. A subject like this cries out for a centered composition; compare to this. A deserved QI but not FP in a very competitive genre. Cmao20 (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So now FP is a competion Cmao20? And you do not want a good photo, you want a standard. Photograph is not about that. OBS: The photo that you pointed out is not centred, the lack of light at the top gives more weight to the bottom, same as cutting the top. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 20:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think FP should be a competition, but I do think that since there is lots of good work being done in this genre, it's appropriate to judge these photos by high standards. Your pic is good and I like it, it's a very spectacular interior, I just find it a bit unbalanced to have so much more room at the bottom than the top. I think it might be better with a bit more sharpening too, it's slightly soft as-is. Don't get me wrong, this is good work, it's just whenever I look at it I can't help wishing it was more central. Cmao20 (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cmao20, I will not defend more this picture, but food for thoughts:

"bit more sharpening too"

This church is a "no tripod" one in Rio, a dangerous city, that I am not feel comfortable in walk with a camera (let alone with a tripod).

I have a 100D, and 18-55 lens (at the time, the widest lens that I had). The camera is lying on the floor, with people passing by.

Panorama to increase the sharpness and the angle of view was not possible, and afford a camera or lens to take sharper results would cost a lot, a lot, and with this investment Rio would not be a place to walk with a car price camera ( a 80D or D7100 cost a car here), notice that I did not produce photos of the exterior of this church...

So how could I delivery better result?

With this sharp criteria, rich areas of the globe will have their photos highlighted away more often than poor areas. And poor areas being register by foreigners will be the highlight.

Just some thoughts.

Obs:I could increase a little bit sharp in post, however I would like not, as this curves, and colours are not ideal for that. And I can cut and loose information, I do not want too.

-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 20:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very beautiful image and for me good composition too -- Spurzem (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oh boy did I think we had a sockpuppet :) Per Cmao. - Benh (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao 20. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Not perfect, but enough considering the circumstances. Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Daniel. --Aristeas (talk) 07:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Münster, Abfallbehälter am Fürstenberghaus -- 2020 -- 5069.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2020 at 08:19:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 08:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 08:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fresh! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The big bokeh balls are too obtrusive for me and produce a less than desirable composition, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan Kekek. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vierzehnheiligen 3070582 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2020 at 08:51:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings/Ceilings#Germany
Info Ceiling fresco of the Basilica Vierzehnheiligen painted by Jos.Appiani (Giuseppe Appiani) 1764-69. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 09:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful ceiling and then some and great details. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent, immense photo. Cmao20 (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suppose you used Hi-Res shot. Hyperfocal at 8 mm is big even at some f/4 which i would use. Hi-Res shot need open aperture to be effective. Now mix it with focal distance. Not so satisfied with HDR, sharp but some mistakes. Did you operate thru smartphone ? --Mile (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Info I didn't use my smartphone as a remote, if that's what you mean. Some mistakes is very general--Ermell (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tournasol7 (talk) 08:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Killarnee (T•1•2) 18:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Woman sewing a face mask with a Singer machine 09.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2020 at 10:14:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Machines
Info created and uploaded by T.Bednarz - nominated by MB-one -- MB-one (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impeccable composition, high relevance and overall very good quality. -- MB-one (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support As the creator. --T.Bednarz (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The previous withdrawn nomination is linked here. --T.Bednarz (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would be good to have it featured and pushed on the picture of the day--Andrei (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would not have it on the front page now since it could misguide people into thinking that homemade masks are enough and efficient wrt corona. Wikipedia is being hailed as a good source for reliable information related to the pandemic and Commons should not muddy the waters. --Cart (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It makes some controversy in Czechia and I'm personally not a fan of the massive campaign which is taking place here. The obligation is meant to prevent people to infect others rather than prevent to get infected. I definitely see your point, though. --T.Bednarz (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it. Don't get me wrong, it's an excellent photo of someone using a sewing machine and as such I support it, but right now might not be the best time to put it front and center. Hopefully things will be more normal by the next POTY if it gets promoted. --Cart (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least lets see if CDS will update their policy --Andrei (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, Cart ended up being wrong just after two days https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/03/politics/trump-white-house-face-masks/ --Andrei (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if Trump said it, it must be true. Right? :-) --Cart (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support A sewing machine version of this classic. If you could remove some green CA from the thread and the red from the fabric, that would be a bonus. It only took a pandemic to get us a useful photo like this , maybe there are more photographers seeing this who have other "hands on" photos of activities... --Cart (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cbrescia (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 01:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great lighting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- B2Belgium (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spurzem (talk) 10:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Killarnee (T•1•2) 18:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wheat field infested by scentless mayweed, Röe, Lysekil, Sweden 3.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2020 at 13:18:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Agriculture#Sweden
Info All by me, -- Cart (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Killarnee (T•1•2) 18:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the simplicity of your recent shots a lot. Your picture reminds me of the book I'm currently reading (The practice of contemplative photography). --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I sometimes think we are so busy trying to find exotic locations and fantastic things, that we tend to miss what we have all around us and the beauty in not so contrived compositions. Or as someone wise put it: "All his life has he looked away to the future, the horizon. Never his mind on where he was." I'm still waiting for an FPC of a nice, good cup of tea. ;-) --Cart (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support: one of these things is not like the other --The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this has quite an interesting rhythm. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The flower should be sharp and not the grain.--Ermell (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not enjoy the steles of the mayweed, and we have only one flower. Not pleasing composition imo. —kallerna (talk) 05:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure why we don't see the whole of the flower? Charles (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's the way it grew and I like it peeking out from behind the wheat like it's sneaking up on it. One barely visible flower makes for a more dynamic compo than an even distribution between wheat and flowers. --Cart (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Our eye is drawn to the flower, so it would have been good to have it in focus. Charles (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From about 15 meters away with wheat swaying in front of the flower, I was lucky to get it this sharp. --Cart (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --XRay ^talk 17:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Cmao20 (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Cart (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mono Cliffs Provincial Park autumn panorama.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2020 at 19:33:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Ontario
Info: autumn colours at the Mono Cliffs Provincial Park, Ontario, Canada. All by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great colours/colors. Is that Toronto in the distance? Charles (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is, you are very observant! :-) --The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wow! That is some SERIOUSLY good image quality. I couldn't see Toronto at all without zooming in, but once I did, it was there clear as day! —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! There was no haziness in the air that day. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful colours. Cmao20 (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jetam2 (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but nothing special IMO. Just a huge photo of trees and the sky.--Claus 14:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Claus. What is the subject of the picture, and why a panorama? —kallerna (talk) 05:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The colours are really beautiful, but I think that the panorama is quite dark, especially the farther hills. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 12:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Claus Obana, Kallerna, and Draceane: You are right: at first glance there doesn't seem to be much going for this photo, but the wow for me is that when I zoomed in, I could see lots of small details that weren't there at first. It's like a huge painting that looks like a mess of boringness from afar, but when you step close you can see all of the tiny details. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Percival --Milseburg (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Claus. -- Karelj (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a distinctive composition. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Im am sorry but also per above, I also got this kind of feedback about some of my Alaska landscapes Poco a poco (talk) 09:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Nice picture, but not good enough for FP, sorry. Tournasol7 (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose After long thinking, per Tournasol7, sorry. --Cart (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Playa de Baquio, País Vasco, España, 2019-08-13, DD 25-34 PAN.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2020 at 17:04:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Spain#Basque Country
Info View of the beach of , Basque Country, Spain. Ok, new attempt for this recent nom, after I could redo the pano without the frame with lower sharpness. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose harsh midday light, right side is still out of focus, horizon now very curved and has stitching errors, bottom has cloning issues. --Ivar (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral same here sorry. And the waves don't transition smoothly anymore. I know you usually quickly fix at least the horizon, so I don't oppose. The blurry right part is not a big issue given the size. - Benh (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the bottom right corner looks like a patch which doesn't blend at all with the surrounding. Where does that come from? - Benh (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benh, Ivar: I fixed the horizon, improved the cloning at the bottom left and fixed an stitching issue --Poco a poco (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry but everything is blurred on the right side of the picture --Wilfredor (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ temporary. There are still too many issues for me. Still a stitching error on the horizon, still the seam which can be seen (even at thumbnail size) on the waves (not an easy stitch, I reckon) and that patch en the bottom right corner (barrier to hide?) is quite obvious, even on thumbnail now for me. - Benh (talk) 09:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good enough for me now, sharpness on the right is really not too bad when downsized, let's remember this is a 129mpx photo. Cmao20 (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Info Will upload a new version this evening (CET) to address the still mentioned issues Poco a poco (talk) 09:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find time yesterday but just uploaded a new version with fixes of the poor cloning at the very bottom, wave in the middle and horizon on the left. The bottom right area is also cloned due to a barrier (you got it right, Benh!) but I couldn't see any obvious stitching/cloning issues. I will look into it tomorrow again with more time, a note would be though helpful Poco a poco (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mostly cleaned the issues. oppose removed. For the bottom right, the pattern you used is different enough so that I can spot it. The seam is also a bit hard. I added the annotation but not sure it helps... I wouldn't remove that part. It would break the composition (my two cents). - Benh (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support: I'd get rid of the rightmost frame entirely: it's blurry and doesn't contribute much. Otherwise, impressive. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Info I made further improvements regarding stitching and also cropped the house on the right. FYI Benh, Ivar Poco a poco (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Southern crested caracara (Caracara plancus) in flight.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2020 at 20:42:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Falconidae (Falcons)
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cbrescia (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charles, how do you usually take such clear pictures of flying birds? My shots of flying hawks are usually very posterized, even at a reasonable range, ISO, and shutter speed. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 01:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't see any flying birds in your gallery. It can help if you get birds near the ground - the caracara comes down a lot to feed, not like an eagle. I used a monopod for this one and tracked it as it flew towards me. I thought posterization comes from post-processing, so good light/camera settings are vital. So if I'm tracking a bird I wait till it passes a bit of blue sky. I adjusted colour balance and lightened the underwing shadows in RAW. I used Topaz Denoise AI then Topaz Sharpen AI. Charles (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ivar (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Peulle (talk) 06:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tournasol7 (talk) 08:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Killarnee (T•1•2) 18:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vendedor de carne en mercado de pulgas chino de Wan Chai.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2020 at 00:57:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Food manufacturing and cooking
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like this documentation of a man at work. I also like that the picture leans a little bit with the man. I feel no inclination to focus on any other criteria, as this picture speaks to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to disagree. Messy composition, perspective issues, cropped fan, ~~over-exposed top right~~, shallow DofF. 13:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesjsharp (talk • contribs) 13:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop issue, left (scale), right (fen), bottom (dish). Some vibrance+. --Mile (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry Wilfredor but I think I agree with Charles here. This is a good quality photo and a useful documentation but the composition isn't IMO that great and I agree that the top right is overexposed. Cmao20 (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Cmao20 fixed the top right overexposition --Wilfredor (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support there are some issues as already covered above. the crops aren't ideal and it is messy, but in this context that's unavoidable. I find it an interesting snapshot of this person's life, and appreciate seeing these sorts of shots at FPC. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Kontra Per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Rhododendrites. --pandakekok9 09:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "flea market" is a seller of second hand goods. I hope this meat isn't second hand. "flea market" is not the right term at all. Better terms would be "meat market' or "wet market". Seven Pandas (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Abolutely agreed. I'd call this "Meat vendor" or something like that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have changed the name in a language where I feel more comfortable that I am writing it well. Thanks Seven Pandas --Wilfredor (talk) 12:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the rest of the code for you after the move. There is always a lot of cleanup if you move a file during a nomination. Please consider that. --Cart (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just realized, thank you very much --Wilfredor (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Changing to neutral. Can someone strikout my oppose? I tried to do it but it didn't like how I did it. Seven Pandas (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Fischer.H Poco a poco (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not perfect, but it does have a certain cluttered realism to it. Daniel Case (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 08:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support After some thinking. I wish we could see more reporter style images, like this, here. --Cart (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. —kallerna (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per Cart.--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:West Village 333 Avenue of the Americas embedded 2019-09-30 17-21.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2020 at 22:30:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#United_States
Info created by Axel Tschentscher - uploaded by Axel Tschentscher - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This crop doesn't work for me. Charles (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop is unattractive to me too, sorry. --Cayambe (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ per above - for a skyscraper I think a vertical crop is much more appropriate. (Indeed, one does exist: here. I'd put it up as an alt if I were you). Cmao20 (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support I will come across as terribly indecisive here since I was the one who suggested the alt in the first place, but this is growing on me, I appreciate Frank’s argument. Cmao20 (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! My main policy is to never give comments so the viewer can decide by their own (especially because featured pictures are for a very broad audience). But looks like sometimes it is worth it!--Andrei (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support I love pictures with a courageous proportion of empty space, and I'm 100% supportive of how you're balancing the building with the blue of the sky on the right (what a coincidence that that part of the image has a different cloud pattern). Thanks so much for being bold and not delivering something banal and boring! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just saw this: thanks to Andrei for nominating. I'm with Frank, here: The nature vs. architecture / color vs. stone contrast was my focus, not the building itself. --Axel ^(talk) 23:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Framing problem and the light is a bit harsh -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is there a little bit more space on right side in original file? --Grtek (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Grtek: No more space, sorry.--Axel ^(talk) 10:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think it is featurable. I like the skies and geometry of this photo. If it would be a little bit wider it would be better, but never mind.--Grtek (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Ryan Hodnett (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Composition doesn't work for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 08:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info created by Axel Tschentscher - uploaded by Axel Tschentscher - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support This crop kills absolutely all beauty of the photo, but it is still good and shows much more windows. --Andrei (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do think this is better, it's much more natural for the building. Cmao20 (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Andrei. The crop totally kills the picture. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To me, the other version shows too few floors and is cropped too wide. This one shows more floors, which is great, but I feel like it's cropped too narrowly and is also clearly slanted on the left side. However, I might decide to vote for this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too tight on both sides -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Ultimately, this composition doesn't work for me, either, per Basile and my remarks above. It's a shame: I really like this building. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think a square crop would be much better. By the way, please fix the moire on the railings. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SupportFeynman02 (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:West Village 333 Avenue of the Americas embedded 2019-09-30 17-21.jpg

File:Pseudocalotes floweri, Flower’s long-headed lizard - Khao Khitchakut National Park (47144396302) by Rushen.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2020 at 05:47:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family_:_Agamidae_(Dragon_Lizards)
Info created by Rushenb - uploaded by Agathoclea - nominated by Ivar (talk) 05:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 05:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Not an exceptional composition, IMO, but definitely another great, feature-worthy capture by Rushenb. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the tail's a problem though the head is excellent. Charles (talk) 11:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- per Ikan --Ermell (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Cmao20 (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Killarnee (T•1•2) 18:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles#Family_:_Agamidae_(Dragon_Lizards)

File:Hotel Milliarede in Nimes 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2020 at 08:01:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#France
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can you go back later this year when the sun's out? Charles (talk) 08:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think so; I don't like to visit the same place again. Tournasol7 (talk) 11:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should consider it at least. Exploring a place in different lights improved my own photography skills a lot. --Cart (talk) 12:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice. I will use it, but maybe somewhere closer :) Tournasol7 (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Good quality as usual but too dull light for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Window at Ali Qupu palace.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2020 at 19:19:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Iran
Info created & uploaded by PopkovAlexander - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting composition. But there is strong blue CA on the edge of window. --Grtek (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I must say I agree with Grtek, and also not enough of the photo is sharp for me to support. I think there's potential for an FP in the shapes cast by the light on the arch of the window, I bet there's a creative composition one could come up with for that. But this is a bit nondescript for me, it's what you'd get by taking a photo looking down a spiral staircase in any historic monument. Cmao20 (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not special enough -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support It looks pretty nice to me. --Gnosis (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Maybe cropped into just the window it might work. Daniel Case (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wind Point Lighthouse 071104.jpg (delist)[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2020 at 12:42:57

Info The current FP doesn't have proper white balance. The replacement fixes that. The newer one doesn't fix completely the chromatic aberration though, but better than nothing I guess... (Original nomination)
Delist and replace by File:Wind Point Lighthouse.png -- pandakekok9 12:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see the point of going in with more modern programs and "fix" old FP's this way. They have the look that was considered ok back then. --Cart (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain This was taken in warm winter afternoon light, so the warm tint does look entirely reasonable to me. In any case, the whole picture (regardless of version) is kind of meh by today's standards and I probably wouldn't support either version today. I'd say either keep it as it is or delist it completely … --El Grafo (talk) 13:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - All I see at a quick look is a bit of a difference in tone that doesn't seem worth bothering with. Is there anything else I should be looking for? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The new version seems pretty similar to the old version except with slightly darker shadows and a slightly bluer overall tone. Not a big enough change for me to consider it a clear improvement, I'm not sure the warm colour of the original is necessarily wrong. As for the original pic, it wouldn't pass today but I think it's pretty good overall, it's a nice lighthouse under sunny light and with good sharpness. I don't think there's any need to delist it. Cmao20 (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- no point in replacing by a PNG that is hardly better, if not even worse. --A.Savin 21:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The old version is fine. As a side note, a PNG is not preferred as it loses more useful information than a max-quality JPEG; I would much rather have the EXIF data than nearly imperceptible pixel perfection. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination It seems this still deserves to be an FP. --pandakekok9 01:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:3Fi114-081 1930 - Le pont national fermé restored.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2020 at 08:04:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#France
Info created by anonymous - uploaded, restored, nominated by S. DÉNIEL
Support -- S. DÉNIEL (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Same bridge after bombing : File:2Fi02473 Pont national US Army retouchée.jpg -- S. DÉNIEL (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it seems you have accidentally scaled down the original image for no reason.--BevinKacon (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't unsee that badly-cropped post in front. Daniel Case (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clouded yellows (Colias croceus) mating Bulgaria.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2020 at 08:49:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Pieridae (Whites and Sulphurs)
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 08:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 08:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work! --Gnosis (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Another great invasion of insect privacy. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done again. Cmao20 (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tournasol7 (talk) 08:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are you sure about the colours? Looks too green/yellow, especially if you compare with the original file. —kallerna (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 'original' was processed from in-camera jpg. This version is from RAW with white balance corrected. But I think you're right, so I've made a colour adjustment to reduce the yellow. Thanks. Charles (talk) 10:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the colour balance isn't right, the flowers look too brownish. Anyways, not enough to oppose, a nice shot. —kallerna (talk) 10:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Killarnee (T•1•2) 18:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Corbières Massif - Pyrenees - Panorama 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2020 at 09:43:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#France#Département Aude
Info View from the Château de Quéribus (Cucugnan, Département Aude, France) on the Corbières Massif with the Peyrepertuse castle and the Pyrenees with the Canigou; created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the panorama. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 11:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a far, clear view. --Milseburg (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not sure I love the composition but it's a sharp and clear view as Milseburg says, and the annotations make it more useful. Cmao20 (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Milseburg and Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Looks overall good to me apart from the bottom, middle left (I added a note). As it is pretty blurry I guess that the rock is quite close to the camera, but below it is again sharp (far away) and the result is a kind of rock levitating in the air? looks a bit strange to me, could you please have a look at that? Poco a poco (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Info It is a part of the the wall of the castle, just in the foregound close to the camera. I didn't crop it for I'd lost much of the foreground (the closer parts) of the landscape. --Llez (talk) 06:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but not exceptional. —kallerna (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Killarnee (T•1•2) 18:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Novotného lávka z Mostu Legií.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2020 at 11:51:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Czech Republic
Info All by Grtek -- Grtek (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Not completely sure, but I`ll give it a try. -- Grtek (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nice light, but the yellow building on the right looks blown and I don't like the right crop. Could you possibly dial down the brightest highlights and extend the photo to the right? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: Yellow building dimmed. Unfortunatelly, this is full resolution, so I have no more space on the right. --Grtek (talk) 13:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry to say, but you're going to struggle at FP with your model G12. Charles (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tilt. And too much water. --Claus 14:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the quality is bad actually, but it's definitely tilted. All the verticals are leaning slightly to the left. It's a beautiful cityscape, maybe some reviewers will think it isn't interesting enough but I like the golden light. Will support when the tilt is fixed. Cmao20 (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree with Charles, since i owned Canon G7. G12 is now even better and have RAW. More up to photographer than camera. Manual WB, not so interesting crop/scene and "gray" weather don't help. But its sharp enough (skyline). --Mile (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Claus and Cmao20: I did second attempt to fix verticals. @Charles and PetarM: Yes, it is constant struggle. The worst thing is CA. But I made two FPs with this camera yet, so I allways hope :-) --Grtek (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --KaiBorgeest (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it now, per my reasoning above. Cmao20 (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I still don't like the right crop. Unbalanced composition to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Adámoz (talk) 07:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I miss some wow here and agree with Ikan Kekek, the lighting is though nice Poco a poco (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spurzem (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan Kekek, it is a very well made photo but i see nothing remarkable --Andrei (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, insufficiently magical. Daniel Case (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan and Daniel --Cart (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Andrew J.Kurbiko. —kallerna (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hou Yifan (29762728494) (cropped).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2020 at 19:26:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Sitting people
Info created by Andreas Kontokanis, Flickr - uploaded by Sporti - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yep. That works.--Peulle (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The composition, face expression, background and foreground could barely be any better for a chess player. --Podzemnik (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Podzemnik. Her expression is haunting: "I've got you, sucker!" -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Podzemnik and Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 09:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 10:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the background at the top of the picture (and it's tilted) Charles (talk) 11:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Podzemnik. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 11:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Podzemnik. Cmao20 (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cbrescia (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looking at her eyes at full size, she seems to read the answers directly on her connected glasses :-) More seriously striking picture of a chess player since her sight is not directed to the game but towards her opponent -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Please add the King's Gambit category --Wilfredor (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles --Andrei (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a fan of the lighting, which makes her hands brighter than her face since it's slightly obscured by her hair. The background is also slightly distracting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Given the venue, I consider this a sports picture, so difficult lighting and busy backgrounds are womewhat expected. --El Grafo (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Ermell (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Podzemnik. Daniel Case (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tournasol7 (talk) 08:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support first time I think I've seen a chess photo here. Hou Yifan is very much a superstar in the chess world, with a long series of superlatives/records and leading FIDE's list of women players by almost a hundred points. Solid portrait photo. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hain Eiche Herbst 121696.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2020 at 22:07:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Plants#Family : Fagaceae
Info All by me -- Ermell (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Seven Pandas (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 06:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Adámoz (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the combination of the contre-jour tree with its shadow. --Aristeas (talk) 09:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 10:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Info Gallery fixed. The easiest way to get the spelling of the section right is to go to the actual gallery page and copy the section heading to the nom. --Cart (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 11:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support} --Milseburg (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. Cmao20 (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not sure about the effect due to the lack of perspective correction but the compo, subject and ligthing are really nice Poco a poco (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Sorry, I don't see what the wow is here. It's a nice photo, but it's just a normal tree. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 02:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kestreltail. —kallerna (talk) 04:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose strong perspective distortion on the sides and a bit overprocessed (lack of details). --Ivar (talk) 05:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ivar.--Peulle (talk) 06:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Percival. --El Grafo (talk) 10:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At first it looks just great, but when you open it and really look at it, the distortion is too much, sorry. --Cart (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't know ... I've seen worse distortion at the edges of other FPs we've promoted. Daniel Case (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good composition, beautiful colors, good lighting -- Spurzem (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I always find it bad when a picture is blown up because a few people miss the "wow". If you asked them what they mean by "wow", they probably couldn't say it. Why don't they just vote neutral or say nothing? -- Spurzem (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I tend to do. "Wow" is such a subjective criterion that it's meaningless . --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fiore di tarassaco o dente di leone.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2020 at 08:52:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Family_:_Asteraceae_(Sunflowers)
Info created by PROPOLI87 - uploaded by PROPOLI87 - nominated by PROPOLI87 -- PROPOLI87 (talk) 08:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PROPOLI87 (talk) 08:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not sharp enough, especially since this is such a common flower. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the fact that the flower is common and that it is not interesting for you does not mean that it is an important plant for its medicinal qualities. As for the image, it was promoted as a quality image in which I had participated as recommended here. However I accept your judgment.PROPOLI87 (talk) 09:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)PROPOLI87PROPOLI87 (talk) 09:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

QI is not enough reason to promote this as an FP though. FP has a more strict standard of quality than QI. pandakekok9 10:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who said the plant is not interesting to me? I like dandelions. Pay attention to what people say. A common plant needs a truly outstanding photo to be featured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand now. I'll try again. Now I can only photograph flowers and plants in my garden because of the quarantine for Covid-19, but I will take pictures of beautiful panoramas as soon as they take us out of the house. Best wishes from Italy.PROPOLI87 (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)PROPOLI87PROPOLI87 (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I live in New York! Stay safe and healthy! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - per Ikan Kekek --Adámoz (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The stamens are not sharp; the standards for flower FPs are very high.--Peulle (talk) 10:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Probably deserves QI but Ikan is unfortunately right that this is not sharp enough for FP. I agree that this is an important plant but the trouble is there are dandelions to be found in loads of gardens and it's not difficult to produce a high quality photo of one. This doesn't stand out - compare to this FP of a dandelion which is sharper and better composed. Cmao20 (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the judgment of all of you, because it serves to improve, but I thought that the fact of having passed the IQ, made it a quality photo. Then the fact that it is not considered suitable I understand and accept it. I will try again here, I do not give up easily despite your negative judgments. I have many photos that have already passed the IQ exam. See you next time!PROPOLI87 (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)PROPOLI87PROPOLI87 (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is good to hear that you will not give up. Most of us have made a long journey with more 'opposes' than we like to remember before we started to get our FPs. :-) --Cart (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! In life never give up! Thanks Kart!And this time I managed to do the application correctly! It is already an improvement for me! Best wishes! PROPOLI87 (talk) 13:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)PROPOLI87PROPOLI87 (talk) 13:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Imago of Colorado potato beetle on leaf with eggs.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2020 at 07:14:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Order_:_Coleoptera_(Beetles)
Info created by Adámoz - uploaded by Adámoz - nominated by Adámoz -- Adámoz (talk) 07:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adámoz (talk) 07:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Can you give geographic coordinates, or at least an approximate location? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Adámoz (talk) 08:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I don't think this macro shot is well done. I also find the composition and the leaves too distracting. Not an FP for me. --T.Bednarz (talk) 08:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - The beetle is only 10 mm long. The DoF of the eggs could be better, but the beetle is pretty sharp for such a small creature. I agree that the composition could be better, so only weak support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the eggs must be in focus. Charles (talk) 09:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question I must zoom in? --Adámoz (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean. F4 aperture never going to work. Charles (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not bad, but the eggs should have been in focus. The stem in the right is distracting for me. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 13:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Adámoz (talk) 13:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, a fairly good shot considering small size of beetle but the depth of field is not good enough. Cmao20 (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~Since you uploaded a new version of the file, the whole resolution of the image is under 1 MB, so it's not even a QI. --T.Bednarz~~ (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a confusion of file size and resolution. The file size is under 1MB but I can't see anything in the QI criteria rules about that. The resolution of the version to which you link is 5.3 mpx. Cmao20 (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, my bad. --T.Bednarz (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Somehow, I like it - Benh (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Benh; also: high educational value. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Benh and Frank. --Aristeas (talk) 08:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Draceane. --Grtek (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done The egggs are in focus. --Adámoz (talk) 10:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, not done. You've added some sharpening, but out of focus is out of focus - it's just not possible to fix that through (conventional) post processing. If anything, you made it worse by introducing additional noise in the background. --El Grafo (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eggs still out of focus, just now with noise. Charles (talk) 11:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. If you keep this version, I will change my vote to opposing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted this. --Adámoz (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 05:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Foxxiestst (talk) 11:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC) Not eligible to vote --A.Savin 13:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mt Sugarloaf (1238m) by Lake Heron, New Zealand.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2020 at 05:16:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/New_Zealand#Canterbury_(Waitaha)
Info All by me. It's Mt Sugarloaf (1238m) by Lake Heron, New Zealand. After the last nomination I thought I'd nominate something with more straightforward composition and more special light. -- Podzemnik (talk) 05:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 05:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 05:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 05:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 05:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 06:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Lovely. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice composition - Benh (talk) 08:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good! —kallerna (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 08:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Colors... -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Prominent --Wilfredor (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Iconic! Cmao20 (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful, does it have a maori name? --Cbrescia (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbrescia: Good question. I don't think so, I couldn't find it anywhere. Most of peaks here don't even have an English name and they're called by their height like "pt1683". --Podzemnik (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Podzemnik: Thanks for the answer. Has a 'sacred mountain' thing so I wondered if it had one. --Cbrescia (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tournasol7 (talk) 08:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Killarnee (T•1•2) 18:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent example of the shape that has gotten so many mountains named "Sugarloaf". Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 21:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 10:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 31 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Münster, Hafen -- 2019 -- 3369.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2020 at 09:24:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Containers
Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by Adámoz -- Adámoz (talk) 09:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adámoz (talk) 09:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice idea, but given the loads of artefacts littering the image, I don't think this is one of the best images on Commons.--Peulle (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fischer.H (talk • contribs) 17:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not special. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panorama of northern parts of Christchurch Central City, New Zealand.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2020 at 06:37:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#New_Zealand
Info All by me. It's a panorama picture of Christchurch. Interesting fact: in the green area ahead used to be buildings but they were all destroyed during the earthquakes in 2011. In 5 years, there will be a new cathedral with hotels and a school. -- Podzemnik (talk) 06:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 06:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice view --Adámoz (talk) 07:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice composition, great resolution, beautiful details. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 11:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful, nice light and good image quality. And, per nomination, this will be a historic view of the city in the near future, so extra interest there. Cmao20 (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose A very nice image of Christchurch (I am an architecture enthusiast so I particularly enjoyed it), but I don't think there's enough wow. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kestreltail. —kallerna (talk) 04:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 08:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I suppose it's inevitable that the land will be rebuilt on, since it had been built on before, but the city looks nice with this open space, at least in this shot. Daniel Case (talk) 05:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- For me--Foxxiestst (talk) 11:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC) Not eligible to vote --A.Savin 13:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cloître Abbaye du Mont Saint-Michel 2015-05-28.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2020 at 17:34:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#France
Info I don't know if Benh was planning to nominate this himself, seeing it's in his portfolio on his user page, but I shall put it up anyway. A sharp and well-composed view of the cloisters at Mont Saint-Michel - compares well to similar photos that are already FP, such as this which is similar resolution but much less detailed. created by Benh - uploaded by Benh - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wanted to yes :) But I wanted to put it in an article first (even though it's not a requirement). Thanks for the nom! - Benh (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought we'd seen something like this before. The FP category is too vague. Cart keeps telling everyone what to do. Charles (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest there should probably be a subcategory for cloisters but I can't see one, other photos of this kind just go into the standard religious building interior subcategories. Cart will correct me if I'm wrong. I don't see any other photos like this from the site. Cmao20 (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of our church photographers should create subcategories like we do with animals - for France, Germany and UK. Paris and London would be a start. Charles (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, since those sections are overflowing, it can be arranged. Creating subsections is fine, but new pages for the galleries is not just about fixing pages, they have to be integrated in the FPC code too and not everybody here has that knowledge. But you only have to ask me if you think something needs fixing. I also see that there are a lot of stained glass windows in those sections. They haven't been sorted in a while, I'll see what I can do about cloisters, windows etc. BTW, the similar photo you were probably looking for is File:The Cloisters at Gloucester Cathedral.jpg, a WML finalist in 2018. There is also File:Karmelitenkloster bamberg Kreuzgang 9244355.jpg. --Cart (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I have noted the Gloucester Cathedral photo as a similar example, though I think this shot is a lot better. Thanks for the offer to create subcategories, Cart - it's a great idea as it would make some of the larger sections on that page much easier to navigate. Cmao20 (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support It is a pity that the image is not so sharp at the ends, perhaps a problem with the lens quality --Wilfredor (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's because of the projection used (rectilinear) which stretches things far from the center. - Benh (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

¨If its a assembled image, please add the template indicating how many images and the type of projection --Wilfredor (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Benh (talk) 10:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very pleasing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 06:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tournasol7 (talk) 08:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Makes me feel I am back at that solemn place. --Aristeas (talk) 09:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Killarnee (T•1•2) 18:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --pandakekok9 12:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 21:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 26 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MG-09-020 (Hospital Rivadavia (de Mugeres) – Buenos Aires).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2020 at 14:10:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Argentina
Info created by AnonymousUnknown author - uploaded by Mauricio V. Genta - nominated/restored by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 14:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 14:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good quality. I would increase the contrast. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done thanks!!! Ezarateesteban 17:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not like this. I mean to increase light, not to increase dark areas. See File:Hospital Rivadavia de Mugeres – Buenos Aires.jpg. Yann

Thank you @Yann: it was an error myself, I uploaded another version, also removed dust spots pointed by @BevinKacon: , regards!!! Ezarateesteban 19:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Super-grainy. Please provide the year (or, if not known, approximate year) of the photo and mention where you photographed/scanned it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Provided original file and date aproximateEzarateesteban 00:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to reduce grainy denoising Ezarateesteban 00:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 19:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak support~~ - Good restoration and fairly good photo for 1890. My support isn't strong, though. We've seen sharper photos, even from the 19th century. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the restored version seems have lost some details, see the trees on the right hand side. Looks like contrast is too high. The two tears at the bottom right of the image, the spot in front of the people in the road, spot near the 3rd column wall on the far left, all these problems have been ignored. The repair of the spot next to the lamp post on the left is half complete. Not quite an FP level restore yet.--BevinKacon (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Yes, I'm seeing the tears, etc. There's also damage near the left margin that hasn't been repaired. Changing my vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The two tears removed and more dust spots also, thanks!! Ezarateesteban 00:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's still some damage on the left side. This is a challenging photo to restore. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed much more on left side thanks!! Ezarateesteban 12:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still clearly damaged. This is a big job. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very big amount of restore work, it also looks the spot healing tool is being used alone. In blank areas such as the sky this is fine, but with details such as the road, the result is bad. You need to use other tools which involve selecting the repair source. I would recommend withdrawing the nomination for now.--BevinKacon (talk) 10:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Getting there ... Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hamburg-Harburg station stairs platf 56.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2020 at 21:09:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Transport#Train_stations
Info created by KaiBorgeest (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC) - uploaded by KaiBorgeest (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC) - nominated by KaiBorgeest -- KaiBorgeest (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KaiBorgeest (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very interesting capture but for such almost abstract photos I think it really helps if as many lines as possible intersect with image corners. A few inches to the right, that would have happened and the photo would look more harmonious. --Cart (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Cart. A nice abstract but I feel that she is right that the composition could be a little better. I like your idea though. Cmao20 (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Cart and Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eastern Bristlebird - Penrith.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2020 at 05:47:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Dasyornithidae_(Bristlebirds)
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Ivar (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can the sharpening artefacts be reduced? Charles (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Info per above new version uploaded. --Ivar (talk) 10:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 06:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 10:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This type of bird grows to be 21 cm long, so this is quite a sharp larger-than-life photo and another deserving FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ouster OS1-64 lidar point cloud of intersection of Folsom and Dore St, San Francisco.png, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2020 at 10:31:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Exteriors#Streets
Info created and uploaded by dllu - nominated Benh (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm surprised the first attempt at FPC failed the way it failed. We are lucky to have a nice rendering of Lidar data which really helps registering the potential of that technology in my opinion. I like the projection and color scheme. -- Benh (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and I also supported the first nomination, which is traditional to link in renominations. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not, it's interesting even though it gives you a bit of a headache to decipher it visually. --Cart (talk) 13:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Killarnee (T•1•2) 18:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 06:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. Cmao20 (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question is it me, or is this slightly tilted CW? Otherwise excellent.--MB-one (talk) 11:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is tilted. I'm not sure author is around at the moment, but if he is not, I'll fix it myself, given that this is a PNG - Benh (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to rotate it but bear in mind that rotation will incur generation loss even for lossless file formats like PNG. Each point is rendered exactly to a 2x2 square and strange artifacts may occur if you try to rotate it (even with nearest neighbor rotation option), for example a small minority of points may end up turning into the skew tetromino. The best solution is to re-render this. However I might not have time to do that right now... dllu (t,c) 22:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's why I pinged you. I guess it's better to render it again. I'll attempt something myself and will let you know on your talk page then. Thanks. - Benh (talk) 06:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dllu: I'm afraid rotating it would crop too much of it (I tested with 3° CCW). So I guess you are the only one who can fix it. - Benh (talk) 06:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support-- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 21:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for nominating! dllu (t,c) 22:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I found this interesting the first time, but didn't really feel equipped to evaluate it (some things are neat the first time you see them regardless of the relative quality). I'm no more knowledgeable now :) but I still like it, and since it's here, I'm content to err on the side of supporting. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Diversity is always welcome. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Exteriors#Streets

File:Women with her child at the medical shop during Lockdown in Nepal-IMG 3257.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2020 at 20:30:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/People#Sitting_people
Info created by Bijay chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay chaurasia- nominated by Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good photo to show the corona problems in Nepal. Especially I like the way this boy is look to you --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 01:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Neither the eyes of the man nor those of the child are really sharp, even if they have been sharpened.--Ermell (talk) 08:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 08:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ermell. Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - Moving, but I'm not sure it's sharp enough to be an FP. I feel a bit like a stinker for opposing, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose A bit per Ikan, but IMO it feels like the compo isn't all there, sorry. --Cart (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mt. Dhaulagiri as seen from Annapurna Base Camp-5324.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2020 at 12:55:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Nepal
Info Dhaulagiri 8,167 m (26,795 ft) -all by me Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 12:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 12:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I 'd prefer more mountain and less path and grass. Charles (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition IMO, but quite noisy and with strange artifacts (e.g. clouds above mountain on the left - sharpened?), also some CAs.. --Grtek (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cbrescia (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Grtek, I like the composition but I definitely see the artefacts, also including a strange (sharpening?) halo on the tops of the mountains. Cmao20 (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That looks like the result of selective sharpening or selective blurring. Either way, maybe you could take another pass at post-processing? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed whites, CA. Nice photo, but would need something "extra" IMO to be featured. —kallerna (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Grtek. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination- I have better version but i am not able to reupload that file because of very low internet connection. --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anvita Abbi 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2020 at 10:43:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Women
Info created by Psubhashish - uploaded by Psubhashish - nominated by Psubhashish -- Psubhashish (talk) 10:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Psubhashish (talk) 10:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's not quite sharp enough for me; FP portraits shouls be of excellent quality.--Peulle (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too soft for such a small size. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, and she should probably be somewhat more brightly lit, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If I had to point to some reason for this !vote, it would be the tree section in the upper left. But on the whole this portrait just doesn't stand out. Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Btv1b69449573 Defaites des Anglois à l'Ance de St Caste restored.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2020 at 08:42:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1700-1800
Info created by Nicolas Ozanne - uploaded, restored, nominated by S. DÉNIEL
Support -- S. DÉNIEL (talk) 08:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful print, albeit on a grim subject, and great restoration. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 10:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Interesting but I can't help but feel the JPEG compression has gone a little far, there are definite compression artefacts visible at 100% especially in some of the darker areas. Cmao20 (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Cmao. The compression artifacts are all over the place and defeat the restoration. The original, while being a jpg, doesn't show this many of them. - Benh (talk) 07:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well restored, a lot of work. I don't mind minor artifacts. --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Thian Hock Keng Temple Singapore.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2020 at 03:18:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Singapore
Info created by - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject is nice but the distorted lamps and above all the fact that you were not centered (and therefore a disturbing lack of symmetry) just spoil it Poco a poco (talk) 10:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hmm, hard to know about the symmetry. I think it might be one of those scenarios where the main subject (the shrine) isn't aligned with the patterns on the floor, so it's impossible to get both centered at once. I agree that it's a bit distracting, but this is a high quality and beautiful pic so it's a support from me. Cmao20 (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special. —kallerna (talk) 08:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination. Lack of enthusiasm -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 09:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Krabbenspinne Misumena vatia Rose-20190803-RM-085027.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2020 at 22:00:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida#Thomisidae (Crab Spiders)
Info Crab spider between the leaves of a rose blossom. Focus stack of 15 images. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is that a baby spider on the right? --Podzemnik (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great closeup of a small spider and her much smaller baby (yes, I see it) in a rose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. @ Ikan Kekek: That is not a baby spider, it is an aphid, a sap-sucking insect. --Cayambe (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You need to do some work on the web. The stacking has wiped out the strands near the spider. Charles (talk) 07:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't we all doing most of our work on the web at the moment?

Daniel Case (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 08:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cbrescia (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Scary Cmao20 (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice, but I have to ask again: how in the world did you make this work with such a delicate flower (that moves with the slightest breeze) and living insect? The last time I asked, it sounded like you came across a sick/dead bee, but this spider seems quite alive. Did you cast a "freeze" spell? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Crab spiders sit motionless for a long time and lurk for prey. For flowers you need some luck to catch a calm moment. With this picture I think it took me four or five tries until it was ok. Thanks for all your support.--Ermell (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support great job! --El Grafo (talk) 10:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Staggering. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! -- Zcebeci (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida#Thomisidae (Crab Spiders)

File:Alp Dado Sura boven Breil-Brigels. (actm) 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2020 at 17:59:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural_elements#Windows
Info No idea what you'll think to this, but I think the textures and shades in the wood make this an interesting pic that deserves a feature. created by Agnes Monkelbaan - uploaded by Agnes Monkelbaan - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am not completely convinced by the composition/framing, but somehow it works for me and the textures are really great. --Aristeas (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral texture great but not the framing. Olivier LPB (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Olivier LPB. Agnes Monkelbaan, do you have a photo of this facade as viewed straight-on? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: Unfortunately I only have 1 picture of this frame. The hatch on the left could not be photographed in its entirety. A board was made for it. (see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alp_Dado_Sura_boven_Breil-Brigels._(actm)_01.jpg. I do have a photo of another frame of this cabin. see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alp_Dado_Sura_boven_Breil-Brigels._(actm)_05.jpg

.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The second photo you link has possibilities. I'm not sure whether it would be an FP or not, but I love the wooden shutters. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I miss a piece of the window on the left, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose POV is not the best, composition not working. —kallerna (talk) 08:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Criticisms about the composition/framing seem likely to prevent this reaching FP, though it seems clear that this was the best photo possible at the time. Cmao20 (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /--Cmao20 (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Starý most Bratislava odstranovanie.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2020 at 21:45:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Other
Info created & uploaded by Izzino25 - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support a bit on the small side, but I really like the composition and action. -- Tomer T (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's a pity this user hasn't made any contributions since 2014. I agree with you, Tomer T, but I think it may be too small to be a new FP in 2020. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Ikan, if this were twice the size it'd be a confident support. Cmao20 (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm really right on the edge of neutral and weak support. It is small, but I'm ok supporting something anyway if it's truly spectacular. Something about the composition just doesn't quite get there for me. Willing to be talked into it, though. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is somewhat busy; the arch of the bridge in the rear bottom sort of breaks up the falling sparks. Daniel Case (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Tomer T (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC) Commons:Featured picture candidates/[reply]

File:Lutyňská street in Rychvald (2020, morning).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2020 at 14:08:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena#Fog
Info All by T.Bednarz -- T.Bednarz (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I took this shot on my way from night shaft and I'm finding it moody enough to get it considered as an FP. -- T.Bednarz (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good mood and quality, but it's shame you didn't take one step in some direction to get that big metal pole hidden behind a tree. --Cart (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, now I see this. I focused too much on positioning the sun and dind't mind the pole :/. --T.Bednarz (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, civilization can be very annoying. I had the same problem here. I managed to get the lamp behind a birch but I lost the angle I wanted. --Cart (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Not finding the pole too annoying overall, and it's a well-composed and atmospheric shot. IMO you should clone out that crushed drinks can next to the path in the bottom left. Cmao20 (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Sure thing. It's far easier to get rid of these than of the crappy pole. --T.Bednarz (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I see what you hoped to get but there just isn't enough of it there. Daniel Case (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I have to agree with Daniel. I see the artistic sensibility but I don't see a great composition in this instance. I hope you keep taking similar photos, though! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see what it is featured in this image. Olivier LPB (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pintal Benang DSCF8334.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2020 at 12:43:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People at work
Info created by RaiyaniM - uploaded by RaiyaniM - nominated by Mimihitam -- Mimihitam (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mimihitam (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I love the colors. The image seems a bit underexposed, though? Seems like this could be improved with processing. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with Rhododendrites it's too dark. Also very average upward view, with this perspective effect in the background, that could have been avoided. I'm not convinced by the angle -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Background is kind of distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my comment above -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schlumbergera × buckleyi flower1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2020 at 17:55:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Cactaceae
Info: flower of Schlumbergera × buckleyi; same subject at this with better lighting and background (weathered wood). All by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! I love the "echo" of the second flower. --Cart (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I wasn't enthusiastic about the other one that you withdrew, but I don't go for this one's black streaky background. Charles (talk) 08:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better than the last one. Per Cart, this is elevated to FP level by how exactly the shape of the blurred background plant seems to echo the sharp foreground one. Unusual but nice. Cmao20 (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special. —kallerna (talk) 08:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wandeling over het Hulshorsterzand-Hulshorsterheide 07-03-2020. (d.j.b) 10.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2020 at 15:23:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Plants#Family : Betulaceae
Info Hulshorsterzand / Hulshorsterheide. Multi-stem solitaire Betula in the drift sand area. Because of the special light and the threatening clouds. Does this photo look like a Dutch painting.
All by me -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overprocessed: (contrast +28, clarity +39). Sand area is losing details. It looks unnatural. --Ivar (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Values reduced.Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support I can see what you mean about it looking like a Dutch painting. Cmao20 (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it seems to be tilted right (if the trees in the background are indicative)?.. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Small correction. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - A sensitive photo as usual, but not interesting enough to me because there's not enough on the left. I'm going to propose a radical crop and mark it. I don't expect you to accept my suggestion, but it indicates a composition I'd be much more likely to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. This photo is of the same tree about 1minute later. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wandeling_over_het_Hulshorsterzand-Hulshorsterheide_07-03-2020._(d.j.b)_11.jpg --Famberhorst (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More dramatic sky in this photo, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Colors look a little unnatural to me, and it gets noisy over on the left. Daniel Case (talk) 04:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 21:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Building in Floyd Bennett Field (40715h).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2020 at 00:36:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors#United_States
Info Naval Air Station New York inert storage building, abandoned since 1971, at Floyd Bennett Field in the southeastern most corner of Brooklyn. Combines two images with different exposures to get exterior then interior with flash. Created/uploaded/nominated by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like this a lot and salute you for noticing and seeing this motif. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support So do I. Charles (talk) 08:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Common darter dragonflies (Sympetrum striolatum) mating blue abdomen and red pterostigma.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2020 at 16:52:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Libellulidae (Skimmers)
Info Another couple ignoring social distancing - this time in Kew Gardens (a few years ago). All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice light — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Zcebeci (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:From Tennfjorden towards Raftsundet, Hinnøya, Norway, 2015 September - 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2020 at 17:29:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Norway#Northern Norway (Nord-Norge/Nord-Noreg)
Info Another beautiful photo from northern Norway by Ximonic. There is another FP from this location but the subject is very different. Created by Ximonic - uploaded by Ximonic - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see the purpose of the tree/shrub. Charles (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, it's placed at an intersecting third and it adds a bit of dynamism to the composition. But each to their own. Cmao20 (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you expect Ximonic to cut it down? Seven Pandas (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I expected the image to be taken a few metres away and exclude the bush. It's not big enough to feature. Not sure that the grass adds to the image either. The subject is the same view the FP, but not as good (though I don't like the boat) Charles (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. Beautiful scene, but not a great composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Existing FP is superior, agree with Charles. —kallerna (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works for me … --Aristeas (talk) 10:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan, I'm afraid Poco a poco (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another lovely Arctic scene ... really works for me at the moment. Daniel Case (talk) 05:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- As per Daniel Bijay chaurasia (talk) 12:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 21:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a more traditional well-composed image, while the other is a broad, sweeping panorama. No reason not to feature both. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Killarnee (T•1•2) 20:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Norway#Northern Norway (Nord-Norge/Nord-Noreg)

File:Enduring Lightning Exercises, March 2020. III.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2020 at 01:53:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport#Military jet aircraft
Info created by Lt. Col. E. - uploaded by Geagea - nominated by Geagea -- -- Geagea (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -- Geagea (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ - Better composition and light in this one, IMO. I'm not sure we need 2 FPs of Israeli Air Force planes over arid land, so I'm unsure about the other one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why such a low resolution? --Ivar (talk) 05:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very low resolution, and still unsharp. The composition isn't that good either, the fighters form maybe 5 % of the image area. The photos in our "Military jet aircraft" category are way better. —kallerna (talk) 08:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have to agree with kallerna - it isn't that sharp, and it is small. Support removed, because after all, FPs are supposed to be the very best photos on Commons, and this one, while IMO beautiful, is not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in favour of the other one. Cmao20 (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 11:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose heavily downsampled. --Ivar (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small, etc. --Yann (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just not as impressive to me as our other FPs of jet fighters. Daniel Case (talk) 01:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Enduring Lightning Exercises, March 2020. X.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2020 at 01:55:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport#Military jet aircraft
Info created by Lt. Col. E. - uploaded by Geagea - nominated by Geagea -- -- Geagea (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -- Geagea (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why such a low resolution? --Ivar (talk) 05:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spurzem (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Certainly on the low side for resolution but a very dramatic photo. Cmao20 (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - IMO, the other one is the really good composition, so no way I'd support this one. It's cool to look at but not IMO great in any way. I hope that doesn't sound mean. A beautiful scene that's a decent composition, etc., is in no way a bad photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 03:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The photos in our "Military jet aircraft" category are way better. —kallerna (talk) 04:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small, etc. Yann (talk) 08:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support great combination of dramatic military aircraft scene, on the background of the Israeli desert. Most of our military aircraft FPs are of the US army, this is something different, with iconic Israeli landscapes. Tomer T (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose heavily downsampled. --Ivar (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bloem van Vinca major subsp. Hirsuta. 10-04-2020 (d.j.b.) 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2020 at 04:45:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Apocynaceae
Info Flower of Vinca major subsp. Hirsuta. Beautiful evergreen ground cover with narrow petals. You see this species much less than the general Vinca major. Location. Garden sanctuary JonkerValley. The diameter of the center of the flower on this photo is 5 mm.
All by me -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but nothing special. A common image of a flower. —kallerna (talk) 08:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I see Kallerna's point here. I appreciate that it's not an especially common species but IMO it's not the best of flower photos on Commons. I'm not sure the sharpness is up to your usual standard if you look in the middle of the flower. Still a good shot but not FP to me. Cmao20 (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao2O. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the comment.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Azulejo facade of the Capela das Almas in Porto (4).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2020 at 07:58:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Portugal
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 07:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 07:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a crop that doesn't do justice to the original. I think you need somehow to show more. 08:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC) Charles (talk) 10:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Works for me. For the record, this is the context. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spurzem (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ I'm sorry. I want to support that one, but the aspect ratio doesn't look right to me. My guess is that you did perspective correction, but I think you should tweak how you did it. It should be easy using the size of a tile as a reference (I checked on Google street view). The GPS coordinates are also wrong. They take me to some rooftop. - Benh (talk) 10:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

weak support I think the height is still slightly too compressed (ref, google street view) but it's better. - Benh (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very beautiful subject. Cmao20 (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would support with a correction as mentioned by Benh above. Yann (talk) 08:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Exactly as Yann. --Aristeas (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh. --MB-one (talk) 11:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Info Benh, Yann, Aristeas, MB-one; New version uploaded. It's better now? Tournasol7 (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes. Now the tiles are square. Yann (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good now. --Aristeas (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kandanaar kelan theyyam at Peeleri vayanattukulavan kaavu 7.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2020 at 07:15:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the gallery here>]]
Info created by Shagil Kannur - uploaded by Shagil Kannur - nominated by Ranjithsiji -- Ranjithsiji (talk) 07:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ranjithsiji (talk) 07:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a stunning scene but the image quality is quite low, unsharp and blurry. --Basotxerri (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree, but there are two problems. the main thing is it is a ritual performed in late night. Very limited people got access to go near the performance. Second thing is fire and heat. So getting a sharp image depends on luck. --Ranjithsiji (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basotxerri. Perhaps Commons:Valued image candidates --Milseburg (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unfortunately the quality is missing, but the composition is very good ! Olivier LPB (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, dramatic motif but sharpness is not at FP level. Cmao20 (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Говерла з Кукула.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2020 at 08:21:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Ukraine
Info created & uploaded by Robert-Erik - nominated by kallerna —kallerna (talk) 08:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning shot from Robert-Erik. Pity that it's downsampled, but the view is just gorgeous. —kallerna (talk) 08:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm sorry; sure, it's a beautiful scene, but the composition is leaving me cold (and I don't mean snowy), and it's just too small for an FP of this kind of motif at this point, I believe. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The metadata information of the image is missing and upload in the original size. There are also a dust spoton the left side --Wilfredor (talk) 11:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would support if it would be original size. --Grtek (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Same as Grtek. --Aristeas (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty shot, but the resolution is IMO too low for an FP in 2020. I think 3000px wide is probably the absolute minimum for an FP landscape, anything smaller than that would have to be really once-in-a-lifetime amazing. Cmao20 (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cefalu View 0832.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2020 at 13:39:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Italy
Info Aerial photo of Cefalù, Sicily --- created and uploaded by Ludvig14, nominated by A.Savin --A.Savin 13:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 13:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: sky is a bit dull. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Dull light, not very sharp, and I question the right crop. I don't think this is an FP in 2020. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Reminds me when I tried to drive through the town with a van...narrow streets. It's a nice picture but you could expect a better light in place like Sicily. —kallerna (talk) 05:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To me the composition feels rather crammed with the beach cut like that. --El Grafo (talk) 07:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan, a very pretty place but unfortunately not captured under the best light. I'd like to see a bit more of the photo on the bottom too, the crop is a little too much. Cmao20 (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, dull light. Daniel Case (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:E-burg asv2019-05 img54 Chkalovskaya metro station.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2020 at 13:35:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Transport#Metro stations
Info Chkalovskaya metro station in Ekaterinburg ---- all by A.Savin --A.Savin 13:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 13:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support: though my favourite is Prospekt Kosmonavtov --The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very nice straight sight lines and reflections of the lights on the poles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because of the unsharpness of the train, especially the left part --Llez (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support More excellent work from you cataloguing these beautiful Russian metro stations. Cmao20 (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically very nice, and getting a photo without people is always challenging. However, the photo is not pleasing IMO, no wow. —kallerna (talk) 05:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Who says Moscow has to have all the beautiful metro stations? Daniel Case (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Transport#Metro stations

File:German shepherd enjoying the sun in the garden.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2020 at 19:28:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family : Canidae (Canids)
Info created by PROPOLI87 - uploaded by PROPOLI87 - nominated by PROPOLI87 -- PROPOLI87 (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PROPOLI87 (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Besides that the focus is well set on the eyes, it doesn't seem to me that this image is one of the very best on Commons, sorry. The composition isn't especially appealing. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it's good dog portrait. The golden glow of the sun sets off the dog well from the landscape in the background. I like that you can see that the dog is in the open and free to roam. --Cart (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Trees look odd and sky is posterized. Charles (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for the trees, it is an olive grove, and the strange effect can be given by the fact that a strong wind blows.PROPOLI87 (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)PROPOLI87PROPOLI87 (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Ordinary image of a pet - nothing special. —kallerna (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good shot, but not outstanding. --El Grafo (talk) 07:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Charles called it: Problematic background. This is your best FP nomination yet, but parts of the dog's head could be sharper. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realize that Charles is right. Only if I had managed to photograph the dog with another background would the photo have come out better. I tried to seize the moment because the dog as he sees me getting closer to grasp the details immediately changes position, in particular he comes to meet me to play. Often the photographer when she runs, and despite being on the move is already easier. Thanks for your judgment.PROPOLI87 (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)PROPOLI87PROPOLI87 (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Cart. Quality is not perfect but probably the best of the shots you've nominated. I get Kallerna's argument that it's an ordinary pet, but I think it's a very good portrait under nice light and well-composed. Cmao20 (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I would like to clarify that pets tend to be uniformed, which seem common and therefore not worthy of particular interests. From direct experience I can safely assert, that this specimen of German shepherd has a wonderful muzzle profile which I think I have focused well, which not all German shepherds have. Each dog has its own different expression and character even if of the same breed. This is why I think that asserting "a common German shepherd" and making him pass as banal is a superficial judgment. Not that I believe I have produced the masterpiece photo, I know my limits that I am trying to overcome and improve the technique, but the subject deserves it, believe me. And it's not just because of the love that binds me to this dog, I loved uglier dogs in the same way.PROPOLI87 (talk) 09:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)PROPOLI87PROPOLI87 (talk) 09:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nice attempt, but the quality is not quite good, sorry. --A.Savin 21:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 08:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh light, and too ordinary -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the way the dog looks, but the background is too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose precisely per Kallerna. Lacks wow, nothing special if you don’t know the dog. I could nominate dozens of pics of my own dog like this, which are very special to me of course :) --Kreuz schnabel 07:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rainy clouds over Wild Mans Brother Range, Canterbury, New Zealand.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2020 at 20:45:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Natural_phenomena#Clouds
Info All by me. The photo displays rainy clouds over Wild Mans Brother Range, New Zealand. Good news: I did manage to put my tent up before it started to rain cats and dogs. -- Podzemnik (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like it, and it's certainly striking! Have you considered cropping a little of the grass from the bottom of the frame? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: I've tried a different crop. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Thanks. I find that improves the form. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would prefer the original crop. —kallerna (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support We dont have many beautiful featured pictures of rainy days (only 5), and zero with cats and dogs. --Cbrescia (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Killarnee (T•1•2) 20:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sonya7iv (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 19:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vaka 'A Hina sculpture in Christchurch, New Zealand.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2020 at 19:17:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Statues_outdoors
Info created, uploaded, nominated by me. It's 2019 sculpture from Tongan sculpturer Sēmisi Fetokai Potauaine. It's located in Christchurch, New Zealand. I think that the sculpture is quite impressive. I chose the blue hour to photograph it as I think that the light goes well with the colours of weathering steel which is the material that the sculpture is made out of. -- Podzemnik (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, I love this one. A modern large sculpture, nice light, a good balance in the photo. --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 21:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Striking! —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. I see a very subtle dust spot just to the right of the top of the lamppost that's right next to the building on the left. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: If you mean what I think it was, it was so small that I'm not even sure if it was a dust spot :) I've removed it. Thanks for th review. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You bet. It seemed like one particularly from a certain angle. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shot of a nice sculpture. Ahmad^talk 17:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like the way the center line of the sculpture creates an asynchronous mirror image within the frame. --GRDN711 (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice! And extending the idea above, it would have been funny that the sculpture lies against the edges of the frame to emphasize the "asynchronous" mirror effect. - Benh (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Killarnee (T•1•2) 20:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sonya7iv (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support after many looks! Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Plaza de Armas, Cusco, Perú, 2015-07-31, DD 53-56 PAN.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2020 at 18:54:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Peru
Info Panoramic view of Plaza de Armas (main square) of Cusco, Peru. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cbrescia (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support There's a lot of people around, but in this case it doesn't bother me, it conveys the bustling activity of the square. Big sharp panorama with plenty to look at, well done! Cmao20 (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of things on the left side are leaning right. --Podzemnik (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Podzemnik: True, I improved that area --Poco a poco (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is not working for me. Light is not great -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --Ivar (talk) 06:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile Morin. —kallerna (talk) 08:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like this composition and scene, my neutral vote is because the strong harsh contrast fixable. --Wilfredor (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 09:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poco a poco (talk) 10:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poco a poco (talk) 10:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amberboom (Liquidambar styraciflua). Detail. 31-03-2020 (d.j.b.).jpg 07.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2020 at 08:17:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Altingiaceae
Info created & uploaded by User:Famberhorst - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Famberhorst was reluctant to nominate this photo himself because he was concerned that the DoF was insufficient, but I disagree. I think it's a beautiful composition and a great closeup, and enough of it is sharp. What do you think? (P.S. I guess the gallery is red because there are as yet no FPs of this family of plants, but if that's wrong, please let me know how to fix it.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. You only need two things, the page title and the section heading. Like this: Gallery page title#Section heading, nothing more. --Cart (talk) 09:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cart. I'll try to remember the format. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination. DoF is not too bad, all the part nearest to the camera is sharp. Cmao20 (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This sort of study needs much more DoF and sharpness and the top left black bit is distracting. Charles (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I quite like it actually. Wowed me when I zoomed to see the full size. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Easy target, so we can be picky. The seed box should be at least centered. —kallerna (talk) 05:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Charles the DoF is weak. The picture is okay as a QI, but I don't find it special enough to consider it as one of our finest -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile Morin. -- Karelj (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile Morin. --Fischer.H (talk) 08:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question User:Famberhorst, do you not support this photo being an FP? It wasn't clear to me that you wouldn't support, but if so, I will withdraw, as this doesn't look very likely to pass, anyway. Of course, another way of looking at it is that it's 2 votes away from potentially passing...-- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for nominating my photo.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 16:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lanjia Saura woman in traditional jewelry.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2020 at 10:31:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Women
Info created by Psubhashish - uploaded by Psubhashish - nominated by Psubhashish -- Psubhashish (talk) 10:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Psubhashish (talk) 10:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but that poerwful green background is really screaming at me.--Peulle (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Peulle. Also, the right side of the face is not very sharp. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Certainly an interesting image, but not a sharp portrait, and part of the left side (viewer's right) of her face is in dark shadow. The brightest part of the photo other than for example the brightest earrings seems to be part of the green wall behind and to the right (viewer's left) of her. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle; those markings on the wall next to her face are unfortunate. Daniel Case (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also wanted to mention the fact that it was an extremely rare opportunity for an outsider like myself to meet an elder from the Lanjia Sora community in traditional attire. The community is not only indigenous but is also speaker of a endangered language where their culture is changing completely at this moment because of social, political and religious reasons. --Psubhashish (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So this might be a good Valued Image, with an appropriate scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 16:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:MG-09-033 (Casillas del Muelle y Bahía).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2020 at 21:37:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1850-1900
Info created by AnonymousUnknown author - uploaded by Mauricio V. Genta - restored/nominated by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 21:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 21:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's interesting to see the old ships, but what makes this a great photo? We see a lot of empty space in the lowest almost half of the frame, which is partly why the dock isn't sharp. Also, I don't know what fixes you've done, but this is an incompletely restored photo with a bunch of stray marks in it, such as near the top margin in the middle. It would help to know what the original size of the print was. If you know, you should add that information. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned the top margin, thanks!! Ezarateesteban 13:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I see more stray marks. Check the entire picture frame. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry but I'm missing what's special about this. Half of the picture is dull sky, another 1/4 is grass and concrete which are not particularly interesting either. --Podzemnik (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Podzemnik. --pandakekok9 09:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Whatever’s supposed to make this pic special, I’m quite sure it’s not sharpness nor composition. --Kreuz schnabel 14:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuzschnabel. --Fischer.H (talk) 08:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination thanks!!! 14:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Fishmonger smiling, Maracaibo street market, Venezuela.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2020 at 18:37:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ezarateesteban 21:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strong portrait! Congratulations, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Support per Frank. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Characterful Cmao20 (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --pandakekok9 09:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cbrescia (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I like this, but I'm not quite sure the B&W adds much. Would be curious to see the original... — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You will find the original here --Wilfredor (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Must have been a slow week! I prefer the color version personally (with this crop), but this looks like it'll pass so no need to change. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 10:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Trichoglossus ornatus - Karlsruhe Zoo 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2020 at 15:13:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Psittaculidae (True Parrots)
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Info Gallery fixed. Fix gallery, you can only use one heading not three, and you need to copy the heading from the gallery page to get the whole thing. You only need two things, the page title and the section heading. Like this: Gallery page title#Section heading, nothing more. --Cart (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks --Llez (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - Good, but doesn't seem great to me. Some of the red/orange feathers near the beak seem posterized. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not seeing the posterisation Ikan mentions. Very colourful bird and good quality photo. Cmao20 (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see posterization, but it looks over-noise-reduced or something on the feathers. Charles (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Flash fired. Light is not natural. Distracting shadow in the background. Overall not special enough -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose colors look unnatural, maybe vibrance +42 is too much. --Ivar (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sonya7iv (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Skylines of the Central Business District at night in Singapore.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2020 at 02:50:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Singapore
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose We've had so many nominations of Singapore skyline pictures that I think we can again be selective on which ones we choose to feature. Personally, I find it less than ideal that Swissôtel The Stamford has been cropped on the right. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My intention was to gather The Fullerton Hotel, the Esplanade Bridge and the domes of the Theatres on the Bay (Esplanade) in the same frame. I don't think we have similar (or even close) compositions of this view already -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 06:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 14:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support When you consider how many London cityscapes we have featured, I think we can afford some more for Singapore if they are different views. Cmao20 (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but the composition just doesn't work for me. my eye is drawn to the largest buildings, which are clustered at the extreme edges and partially cut off. if the main subjects are the lower buildings in the middle, I would figure a tighter frame on them? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You put words to my vague gut instincts! —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This skyscraper was intentionally included. Although I agree it is eye-catching, a crop wouldn't change that much. I gave a try (even before your remark), and then considered the opportunity for an alternative. But still prefer this composition. For me this left part may be an entrance to get into the image, and the bridge too -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aristeas (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The visual weight is distributed too close to the sides. We have several large buildings very close to the left edge, a sea of nondescript buildings in the middle, and then a moderately tall tower (larger than anything else in the vicinity) cut off on the right. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"A sea of nondescript buildings", there were at least three major ones. However Done more buildings identified now -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if I wasn't clear - I was referring to the visual prominence rather than notability of the buildings. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand that the emphasis is on the middle, but I agree with King of Hearts that there appears to just be a sea of nothingness in the middle. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose - I fall on the side of the opposers here. This photo is certainly valuable and high-quality, but the composition is just not fantastic to my eyes. Compare this great panorama, admittedly a blue hour shot, but just a great composition (I didn't vote on it because I was still away from home, without access to Wi-Fi at the time). This is also a much more interesting composition. I also like this night shot better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose denoise overdone, soft contrast and edge pixeling because oversharpening --Wilfredor (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. Shot at ISO 100, no need to denoise much -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Technical quality is really good in my opinion, but in terms of composition I'll have to agree with the other opposers. --El Grafo (talk) 10:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pavel Buchta, Konstantinos Dimitriou & Jorgen Burchardt (RedC), U21 CZE-GRE 2019-10-10.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2020 at 23:54:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Association football (soccer)
Info All by me. - nominated by T.Bednarz -- T.Bednarz (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another image from that rainy match. I have to admit that the compo could be better, but unfortunately it was really hard to consider it since this moment lasted for only 1 or 2 seconds. -- T.Bednarz (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why to nominate if you think the composition is only moderate? FPs should be the finest content of Commons. The POV is not perfect here, as we see only the back of the player and the other player in the background is slightly distracting. The rain is atmospheric ofc. —kallerna (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yeah, it's not bad, but the composition isn't a bullseye for me. In particular, I feel like the people are crowding each other. It might have been OK if it were only the ref and Dimitriou, but in this case there's also another player in the background quite close to the action.--Peulle (talk) 08:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. It's very challenging to get fantastic sports photos, because part of timing is really luck. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't mind the player in the background. He creates context. The Ref and the sent off player are excellently captured and the rain creates the right atmosphere. --MB-one (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad composition, and beyond that it would be nice at least to have cropped out the largely empty sides. Daniel Case (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would be way more impressive without the background player and then cropped into portrait orientation. Could do with some brightening, too --Kreuzschnabel 15:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Just had to try: File:Konstantinos Dimitriou & Jorgen Burchardt (RedC), U21 CZE-GRE 2019-10-10 ks01.jpg --Kreuz schnabel 15:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tussilago farfara - Rouge Park.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2020 at 02:43:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Asteraceae
Info: Coltsfoot blooming in a quirky manner. All by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition, nice colours. --Cayambe (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 22:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not special enough IMO. —kallerna (talk) 05:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Special enough for me. I find this a very good, harmonious composition. What helps complete it is the buds behind the flowers and the diagonal sticks. I can spend quite a while moving my eyes around the picture and enjoying it, as I would with a good painting (and I'm not suggesting that it looks like a painting, but merely that it's good formally in a similar way). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Zcebeci (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cyrtodactylus interdigitalis, Ulber’s bent-toed gecko - Phu Hin Rong Kla National Park (42662042381).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2020 at 15:32:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family : Gekkonidae (Geckos)
Info created by Rushenb - uploaded by B2Belgium - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose way off FP sharpness. Error in creator/upload info. Charles (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Error fixed. --Tomer T (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharpness seems OK to me. DoF could be better in some places but the head and most of the body of the lizard is sharp. Also this is very high-resolution so overall a clear FP for me. Cmao20 (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen you make this comment before Cmao20. I don't think high resolution is (or should be) a big factor in voting for FP. I'd rather have a sharp 3000 x 2000 image than this effort which you can see is blurred at 640 x 427 pixels. Charles (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All I really mean is that it's unfair to judge pixel-level sharpness on a 40mpx image the same as you would for a 10mpx image, because it's like looking at the photo through a magnifying glass. I think that's what you mean too when you say you'd rather have a sharp smaller image than a larger unsharp one, so I don't think we actually disagree in general. As for this particular picture, the DoF is not perfect, but even at full size the lizard's head and a large amount of the body is pin-sharp, so I think it's good enough for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Charles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. DoF insufficient, background is sharper than central part of the animal. --Kreuz schnabel 14:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuzschnabel. --Fischer.H (talk) 09:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kudzu graveyard (40580p).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2020 at 05:17:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Plants#Family_:_Fabaceae
Info kudzu, a climbing vine that has done considerable ecological damage here in the US (and elsewhere), has completely blanketed and killed nearly all of the plants in this area. I find the landscape of viny silhouettes interesting to look at, as well as a little creepy -- like a ghostly menagerie. (8-frame panorama) created/uploaded/nominated by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow. --Grtek (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cbrescia (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, fascinating stuff. Cmao20 (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me, not special enough -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. —kallerna (talk) 05:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile Morin and Kallerena. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wouldn't typically do this, but I want to articulate why I think this does have "wow". Obviously extremely subjective, but I was happy enough with this that I'd like to argue for it a little. :) Yes, it's a mass of brown and blue. It's not a "look at this beautiful nature scene" picture. It's a big brown blanket of death covering a large natural area, illustrating the devastation this invasive species can cause. The wide multi-frame view captures a big section of the affected area, and it's quite sharp given the subject. Not expecting to change minds necessarily, but more to justify why this is one of my favorite pictures I've taken recently. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose just a good photo of a landscape for me. Olivier LPB (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I get it. Daniel Case (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Original but the compo doesn't work to me, I also miss something here Poco a poco (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Interesting, and might be a good VI if we can find an appropriate scope for it, but I agree with Poco on the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 19:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sawfly (Nematus miliaris) larvae.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2020 at 07:42:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family : Tenthredinidae (Sawflies)
Info These are not caterpillars, but sawfly larvae. Sawflies are related to wasps and bees. They can be greedy pests. I know a couple of the larvae at the bottom are blurred - these guys do a lot of wiggling. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 07:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 07:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, interesting. What's the difference between the larva with the amber/light red head and the others with the black/dark purple heads? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are many developmental stages in insect larvae, called instars. I had a look online and this genus seems to have five or six. Charles (talk) 10:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 08:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Grtek (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cbrescia (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed: the exposure of highlights has been adjusted too much (looks unnatural) + still overexposed due to harsh light. Due to highlight adjusting the saturation is also slightly too much. —kallerna (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, big adjustment on highlights on the top half of the leaf, but I felt that was OK in this instance. Charles (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Zcebeci (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Killarnee (T•1•2) 20:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 19:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods#Family : Tenthredinidae (Sawflies)

File:Glyphoglossus molossus, Blunt-headed burrowing frog - Hua Hin District, Near Pala-U.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2020 at 13:39:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians#Family_:_Microhylidae_(Narrow-Mouthed_Frogs)
Info created by Rushenb - uploaded by Moon rabbit 365 - nominated by Ivar (talk) 13:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 13:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support foreground right bottom is distracting, you could remove it cloning, however, its a specimen certainly exotic --Wilfredor (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support yurk - Benh (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charles (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I prefer this one. -- B2Belgium (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support This creature is somehow so ugly that I think it's actually quite cute. Cmao20 (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice and excellent sharpness but too dark, for now. Maybe I'm going to give a weak support later, or staying neutral for this reason. The best would be to fix this issue, in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would prefer natural light conditions, reflections are distracting. —kallerna (talk) 07:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kallerna: I think this is natural light conditions (in the forest perhaps), because according to metadata flash did not fire. And look at the frogs eye, does the reflection look like flash? --Ivar (talk) 09:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does look like an external flash to me. Not sure though. —kallerna (talk) 10:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The catch light in the eye, the reflections on the back as well the direction of the light/shadows (light hitting the side of the animal, not the top) strongly suggest a (diffused) flash was used. The camera can only register (and store in EXIF) whether the flash has fired when there's a two-way communication between camera and flash. That's the case for the built-in pop-up flash and various kinds of TTL-flash. But just like in macro photography, in situations like this most experienced users would probably be using "dumb" manual flash for better control. That would probably not show up in EXIF [1] --El Grafo (talk) 10:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not natural light. This photographer uses an elaborate off-camera diffused light source. I don't know how many of the shots are set up (i.e. the animal is moved into position). This is very common (and OK) with reptiles as long as the animal is not captured and held for some time. Unfortunately, this does happen in many places. Charles (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at f/14, ISO160 and 1/320th of a second, there's not much ambient light getting in (but it seems also it was taken at night already). That really is the only weakness of this photo and I do agree with Kallerna. And yes, it's very very likely lit by a very very strong (harmful) flash. I feel photographer could make his photo even better by lessening the flash and letting more ambient light in. I'm only conjecturing here. Wonder if wildlife photographers agree. - Benh (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There will be little chance for ambiant light. It is silly to ask for it. If you do find a frog in a forest during the day, it's still too dark. Has to be artificial light for a shot in the wild. Frogs are active at night, not during the day. And with a frog which is always 'wet', you get reflections. Flash photography is not considered dangerous to reptiles and amphibians. Charles (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Silly or not, the majority of existing FPs have far less refletions than this. It’s supposed to be hard. If it was easy, everyone would do it. Hard is what makes it great. —kallerna (talk) 04:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can do with same reflection, but the light quickly falls of around the subject and is quite flat and hard (shadow). But I realise it might be hard to setup (or I wouldn't have supported) - Benh (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cbrescia (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per my comment above. It could be brighter and more distinct I think -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Killarnee (T•1•2) 20:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sonya7iv (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low DOF and unfortunate lighting. --Smial (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Amphibians#Family_:_Microhylidae_(Narrow-Mouthed_Frogs)

File:Saint Martin's Island.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2020 at 13:59:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Niaz.morshed - uploaded by Niaz.morshed - nominated by RockyMasum -- Rocky Masum (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rocky Masum (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the sign? Charles (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid I agree with Charles, plus I don't find the composition that great, with the cut-off pine tree at the right. I'm not 100% sure what the subject is supposed to be. Pretty photo though. Cmao20 (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao20. Also unsharp, noisy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Also no wow for me --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice image but unclear subject. --Kreuz schnabel 14:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Basotxerri (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Time to withdraw the nomination@Niaz.morshed: I can see why you might have taken this one but it just doesn't work. There have been no supports save your own in the five days this nomination has been active, and no fresh !votes in three days. This nomination is not going to succeed. Daniel Case (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Daniel Case: I hope this comment doesn't interfere with the bot, but I just wanted to point out that Niaz.morshed didn't nominate this file, Rocky Masum did. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tenun Ulos.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2020 at 13:09:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People at work
Info created by Maula039 - uploaded by Maula039 - nominated by Mimihitam -- Mimihitam (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mimihitam (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really like the composition, but the focus has to be on the girl, not the rug in the left foreground. Could I suggest QI before FP? Charles (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like the good control of exposure time, so I'm going to close my eyes on that big sheet on the left (maybe it's intentional, but I don't like it). A pity this needed such a narrow aperture, but I think that is a good tradeoff. - Benh (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles, except I don't like the composition. For me, this rug is like obstructing the interesting content (all these workers hidden behind). Probably not the best angle, or the best composition / framing -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 03:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:The National Hospital for the Paralysed and Epileptic, Queen Wellcome V0013481-restored (retouched).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2020 at 13:09:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Exteriors#Streets
Info created by James Akerman - uploaded by Fæ - restored by Ezarate and User:PawełMMnominated by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 13:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 13:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Good but not yet great restoration effort. Look at how the "W" in "news" is smudged, for example, and look at the remnants of a tear at the top margin to the right of "1884". That's not an exhaustive list (for example, there are also some small things below "news"), but those are the most obvious areas to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:250 Arctic Tern restored.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2020 at 08:48:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Others#Animals
Info created by John James Audubon - restored, uploaded, nominated by S. DÉNIEL
Support -- S. DÉNIEL (talk) 08:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Beautiful illustration and a good restoration, but it can be better. You left a stray mark above the "m" in "from", and some of the letters could be more fully restored to the fully inked appearance that was presumably in the original when it was new. There's also a stray mark within the first "C" of the number "CCL" on the upper right. I think some additional work should be done, and then this will be a very deserving FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

fait --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Excellent, merci! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very beautiful illustration. Cmao20 (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meiræ 06:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Others#Animals

File:Abbaye Saint-Michel de Cuxa - Cloister 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2020 at 13:46:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#France
Info Part of the cloister, Abbey of Saint-Michel-de-Cuxa, Codalet, Pyrénées-Orientales department, France. About half of the stonework was transferred to the Museum The Cloisters at Fort Tryon Park in Washington Heights, Manhattan at the beginning 20th century, where a copy of this cloister (and others) was built. So the cloister in the original Abbey is incomplete, for a part of the original forms the cloister of the copy of the Museum in New York.
Created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a QI for me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The motif may not seem special at first glance, but the quality is outstanding. --Milseburg (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. This is a very odd sight to me since I know The Cloisters so well (by the way, I'd say they're in Inwood, not Washington Heights). It's painful to see the results of what sure looks like vandalism in removing part of this cloister to ship abroad. I think it would be good to add your description here to the file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Added to the file description. According to Wikipedia "The Cloisters" is situated in Washington Heights, Inwood Hill Park is north of it (see also Openstreetmap). --Llez (talk) 09:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Fort Tryon Park is in Washington Heights, but The Cloisters sure is pretty far north to not be in Inwood. I guess there's no reason to try to resolve a minor Manhattanite dispute about where one neighborhood ends and another starts, relating to the edges of one neighborhood or another. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a post-script, though, from w:Washington Heights: "modern usage defines the neighborhood as running north from Hamilton Heights at 155th Street to Inwood, topping out at just below Hillside Avenue or Dyckman Street, depending on the source." Identify me with the source that says that Dyckman Street is part of Inwood, period (not its southern boundary, which strikes me as absurd), and that having Hillside Avenue be the southern boundary of the neighborhood makes sense. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to the Cloisters being in Inwood ... "Washington Heights" to me means the area around Columbia. Inwood is where the E train ends, and where Manhattan has its highest natural ground. Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confusing Morningside Heights (near Columbia, more or less following the course of Morningside Drive and west of Morningside Park, which extends from 110th St. to 123rd St.) with Washington Heights (from 155th to above 191st). And Inwood is where the A ends/starts. The E goes to Jamaica, Queens. Also, Bennett Park is in Washington Heights, which indeed has the highest natural ground in Manhattan. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Milseburg. Good quality and nicely composed. Cmao20 (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Zcebeci (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice QI but for FP I'm missing something more special. The light is rather harsh, the composition unconvincing. Perhaps a step to the left would put the water in the middle of the center column and the oval fountain more right / into the center of the cloister. --Podzemnik (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Podzemnik. —kallerna (talk) 09:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sonya7iv (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per King. -- Karelj (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Podzemnik. --Smial (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:Mauergedenkstätte Bernauer Straße, Berlin, 170514, ako.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2020 at 15:14:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Other#Germany
Info Part of the Berlin Wall Memorial on Bernauer Straße, in early-morning light. The sun shining through the pillars to cast divergent shadows, together with the slightly misty atmosphere of the photo, combine to make a striking and beautiful composition. created by Code - uploaded by Code - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking! --Kreuz schnabel 15:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow! - Benh (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Simple, good composition with great light and timing, and nice to see a photo by Code here again. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 14:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support :-) --XRay ^talk 10:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zentbechhofen Störche Nest-20200319-RM-151747.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2020 at 13:46:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Ciconiidae (Storks)
Info Mating storks in in Middle Franconia. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - All the time you've spent observing the stork nest enabled you to capture a beautiful moment. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, it doesn't normally take long! I'd crop out the purpose-built support structure under the next. Charles (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I prefer to leave it as it shows how the reproduction of storks is supported.--Ermell (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. Charles (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I don't like the composition with cropped nest. —kallerna (talk) 04:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a well-reasoned oppose. If you show the whole nest on these stork nests —kallerna, the mating birds are far too small and that's the idea of the shot. Charles (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. Then one should find another viewpoint etc. Anyways, now the photo is not balanced. —kallerna (talk) 09:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great pose, perfect moment. --Aristeas (talk) 10:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. Light could be better but it's the sort of capture you are lucky to get at any point, not worth being picky over things like that. Cmao20 (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support The crop of the nest results in an unbalanced image but the quality and moment are compensating that Poco a poco (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Storx! Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Killarnee (T•1•2) 20:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacqke (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sonya7iv (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Ciconiidae (Storks)

File:Btv1b530849639 plan du port et de la ville de Brest 1855 restored.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2020 at 11:25:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Maps#Maps_of_Europe
Info created by L. Magado - uploaded, nominated by S. DÉNIEL
Support -- S. DÉNIEL (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Au-delà des critères habituels, vous noterez que la carte est Géoréférencer dans Wikimaps Warper (accès par le bouton qui se trouve dans la section Géoréférencement). Avec la transparence, il est possible de comparer la ville avant et après sa destruction. C’est aussi une aide au géo-référencement dans wikipédia des bâtiments de Brest qui ont été détruits. Ce travail est d’autant plus simple que la carte dispose d’une légende très détaillée. Autre particularité, la carte a été tiré en deux fois chez deux imprimeurs différents. Je présume que l’un a imprimé la carte et l’autre la légende. Pour le léger arrondi du cadre, j’ai cru avoir affaire a une déformation due a la prise de vue mais quand on aligne le titre avec un bord de l’écran on voit qu’il n’est pas déformé c’est donc que l’arrondi est d’origine.--S. DÉNIEL (talk) 11:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Selon moi, la distorsion créée par le pli du papier doit être corrigée --Wilfredor (talk) 11:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Si vous regardez l'original vous constaterez que la carte est encollé sur sur un carton rigide. C'est généralement le cas pour toutes les cartes de la Bibliothèque nationale de France. Elle n'est pas gondolée ou tordue. L'ensemble des autres lignes sont parfaitement droites. Un pli au milieu n'est pas la source d'un arrondi.--S. DÉNIEL (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tiguidou! Donc ça semble être en ordre, pour moi c'est une bonne restauration, svp, j'aimerais voir une description en anglais si possible. --Wilfredor (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question Vous avez supprimé une signature et une date dans le coin inférieur droit. Est-ce la bonne chose à faire? Charles (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Oui, les éléments comme les tampons, marques au crayons etc sont des rajouts d'archiviste qui ne sont pas sur le document d'origine. Ici, il me semble que c'est plutôt un ancien numéro d'inventaire + la date. Le numéro actuel est Btv1b530849639. Ces marques restent visibles sur la version non restauré qui est en lien mais je rajoute ses modifications dans le modèle de retouche pour être plus exact sur les modifications apportées.--S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Je trouve cette restoration brillante, et c'est un très interessant document. Bonne nomination! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work of drawing, engraving and typesetting, good scan. --Aristeas (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Je soutiens par les autres. Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 19:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Maps#Maps_of_Europe

File:Kuehneromyces mutabilis-20191229-RM-101505.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2020 at 07:37:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Fungi#Strophariaceae
Info Foxtail with hoarfrost on a dead tree stump. Stack of 12 frames. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 07:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 07:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 14:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful work as usual. Cmao20 (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Jacqke (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 04:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sonya7iv (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 06:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Killarnee (T•1•2) 03:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not tidy but beautiful for that ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ISR-2016-Caesarea-Caesarea Maritima-Tunnel.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2020 at 16:07:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Israel
Info created by Godot13 - uploaded by Godot13 - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice photo that exemplifies "the light at the end of the tunnel". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not for me, too simple in my opinion. (but beautiful photo of course) Olivier LPB (talk) 10:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Cmao20 (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much of the photo is in the shade. —kallerna (talk) 08:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The dark part is not very attractive in my view, and I miss the wow factor. Perhaps just too contrasted -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile Morin. --Fischer.H (talk) 08:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Smial (talk) 11:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 19:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 00:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Magdeburg Green Citadel Corner at Cathedral Plaza 2019-09-24 16-05.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2020 at 16:14:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
Info created by Axel Tschentscher - uploaded by Axel Tschentscher - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very interesting building but IMO too cluttered composition for FP, with the people, car, bikes etc. I understand it's probably really difficult to get the shot without them though, it's just I think this is the kind of motif it's probably quite hard to get an FP for. Cmao20 (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the people, car, and bikes. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Careful Support. The building is quite impressive, the light is good, composition alright, image quality good, wow effect not very big. Bikes and people add a bit of organic feeling to it which goes weel with the structure. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Intrusive right part. Composition is not great. Distracting pedestrian -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao20. --Fischer.H (talk) 09:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 19:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 00:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pagellus bogaraveo - Mercado Municipal Funchal .jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2020 at 15:50:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family : Sparidae (Sea Breams and Porgies)
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the POV is awkward, distracting upper left corner, underexposed. —kallerna (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see the underexposure but I agree on Kallerna's other criticisms and I think the fish should probably be sharper. This is still a good photo considering it's 24mpx but I don't see it as FP. Cmao20 (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao20. --Peulle (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdraw my nomination --Llez (talk) 05:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pacu Jawi in Tanah Datar.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2020 at 03:41:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Individual sports
Info created by Myfirmann - uploaded by Myfirmann - nominated by Rachmat04 -- ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 03:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 03:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. But are these cows (lembu betina) or bulls (lembu jantan)? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Info From Pacu jawi#Pamainan, they are bulls which aged 2–13 years old (min: "Jawi nan digunoan adolah jawi jantan baumua 2 inggo 13 taun"). ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 09:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They sure looked like bulls. So I don't think "Pacu jawi" really means "cow race"; it actually looks more like it means "cattle race", with the cattle in this case being bulls. Would you like to update the file description for greater clarity? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you, ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 03:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the description should say: "In this event, a pair of bulls run along a muddy paddy track with a length of 60-250 meters, while a jockey stands behind, holding both bulls." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, my mistake. I have edited the descriptions as suggested. Thank you. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 04:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support ok for me, good composition. Olivier LPB (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support the race in the muds, it takes a skill. Harditaher (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose This pic gave me an awful lot of deja vu. It seems very similar to this FP and current POTY finalist. Not sure we need two FPs with a similar composition of this sport, especially since the other one has a more dramatic composition. Cmao20 (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The photos are different, I think it is an excellent shoot --Wilfredor (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support but poor animals... Poco a poco (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am a vegetarian for the same reason. --Wilfredor (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Another strong POTY candidate… --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Oppose No, Frank. Animal cruelty not good for POTY. Charles (talk) 08:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Just curious: Would you oppose horseracing photos on the same basis? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC

No. Although jockeys use whips on horses (the cruelty issue is still debated), they don't bite the tails of the horses like happens in these bull races. I would support an historical image of, say, Manolete, but not a current Spanish bull-fighting photo. Charles (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. Biting a bull's tail is nasty. Naive question: Why don't the bulls go after him? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess for the same reason that a horse doesn't bite its jockey after the race! Charles (talk) 10:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Way too similar to existing FP (which is better). —kallerna (talk) 08:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't understand how this is too similar to this FP when it's clearly not the same scene (the jockey, the bulls and the background are markedly different) and the composition has more details. We surely won't stop promoting FPs depicting bicycle, F1 or horse races just because we already have existing FPs on the same themes. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Of all the images on the page today to be supported or opposed, this is the only one I have come back to look at more than once. It has energy.Jacqke (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's impossible not to compare this to the current POTY finalist (and frontrunner, I think). The overall composition and drama of the other is better, and while I could see supporting another image of the same sport, this isn't it. In general, it takes a lot of educational value + wow for me to support featuring pictures of ethically problematic behavior. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better than the other FP, IMO (which does not mean it should be delisted). Daniel Case (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mimihitam (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports#Individual sports

File:Ship Wreck near Point Reyes.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2020 at 14:57:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water_transport#Shipwrecks
Info created & uploaded by Mathteacherwhoalsotakesphotos - nominated by Ivar (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice composition but unfortunately it's underexposed and the boat seems a tiny bit out of focus. Cmao20 (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition and colors, the exposure is appropriate for twilight. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - It's worth noting that we do have a FP of this ship, but it's obviously very different. I wish it was a little bit sharper (acknowledging the necessary trade-off), but the drama is quite good. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Killarnee (T•1•2) 03:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per KOH --Milseburg (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support --Aristeas (talk) 09:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the drama and darkness in the photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Maybe I don't get this. But I've literally seen hundreds of photos of this specific place and the one presented here is by far not the best one. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting and centred composition. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles, it's also a bit too soft Poco a poco (talk) 10:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The left side is too dark. I will suggest a crop that I would support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Ivar (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ivar (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tanjidor, by M Jeffry Hanafiah.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2020 at 15:45:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Musicians and singers performing
Info created & uploaded by Emjeha - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Has the lower half of the image been cut out/the background painted black? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesjsharp (talk • contribs)
Comment - Charles' question hadn't occurred to me. User:Emjeha, terima kasih untuk gambar ini! Saya sukanya banyak. Soalan Charlesjsharp: Adakah latar belakang gambar ini ditambah sebagai lukisan? Saya juga akan nantikan jawaban Anda. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

jadi berapa bahasa anda bercakap Ikan Kekek ? (my apologies to Google translate) Charles (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer in English. I lived in Malaysia for 2 years of my childhood and became absolutely fluent in Terengganu dialect (thick accent) within 6 months and also read and wrote very well at a 6th-grade level. Malay and Indonesian are in my estimation almost as mutually intelligible as British and U.S. English, and I know some particularly Indonesian words as well. I regained most of my fluency in Malay after week 1 of my 4 1/2-week return trip in 2003. My other best non-English languages are Italian and French, which I have spoken at a very good conversational level (sufficient for long conversations) and read well when in practice (I'm rusty but can still read, write and speak them somewhat). After that is probably German, which I was speaking at a sort of advanced intermediate level, maybe, the last time I was in Germany in 2014 but don't do so well reading or writing because my vocabulary is limited and I'm not comfortable with many aspects of German grammar yet. I also speak sort of restaurant-level Spanish (but it keeps going over to Italian) and survival-level Mandarin and picked up a smattering of Hungarian in Budapest in 1994, most of what little I knew I have since forgotten. That mostly covers it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

маш гайхалтай Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overprocessed --Wilfredor (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose got to agree with Wilfredor. It's a great image, but seriously overprocessed to the point of uncanny valley. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, the processing is a bit heavy, but not overly so for my tastes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would like to support; in fact, I considered nominating the photo. But I would like a reply to the question on whether the background was added separately, and so far, no answer has been forthcoming. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: , @Emjeha: is not active during the last month, but I don't think that a fake background is probable. It is quite clear that there's an black fabric on the background, in some areas it's very noticeable. The bottom part is quite uniformly black, but so are other areas in the photo. Tomer T (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The only black article of clothing that's obvious to me is the man's songkok (hat), but I'll support based on your confidence about the background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose per Rhododendrites. I'm really not sure if it's a photo or a painting. Daniel Case (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vista de Tromsø, Noruega, 2019-09-04, DD 35-43 PAN.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2020 at 10:30:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Norway
Info Panoramic view of Tromsø from Mount Fløya, Norway. Tromsø is the 12th most populous municipality in Norway with a population of 76,974 but the largest urban area in Northern Norway (and the third largest north of the Arctic Circle anywhere in the world (following Murmansk and Norilsk, both located in Russia). Most of Tromsø, including the city centre, is located on the island of Tromsøya, which is connected to the mainland (from where the pictures was taken) by the Tromsø Bridge (in the middle of the image) and the Tromsøysund Tunnel (further to the right). c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Go back (next decade) when the sun's out! Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A sunny image of Tromsø wouldn't be very representative, I'm afraid Poco a poco (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful. If this were a dull gray, that would be something else, but it's not: It's a very active gray. And a formidable achievement. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure, but is the horizon slightly curved? —kallerna (talk) 11:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes it is curved. ~~Straightening it might cut the shore at the bottom.~~ (no it shouldn't cut it) - Benh (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan, the greyness contributes to the mood rather than being dull. A very high-resolution panorama with lots of detail. Cmao20 (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose looks like the bridge is falling over (cw tilt). --Ivar (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I used to live here, actually, so this takes me back. But these weather conditions don't really wow me, I fear. The light is not as good as it could be. I know; I have been up there on Fløyen on sunny days. It's marvellous, because you can see for miles and miles, mountains and fjords ... Pity you missed that.--Peulle (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose When I've been up there, I couldn't see a thing through thick clouds. This is better but doesn't wow me. It's also tilted and there are stitching errors - this should be checked in advance. Perhaps nominating for QI first would sort it and save some time to FPC reviewrs. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Benh, Ivar: I've addressed the bend and the perspective issues (I believe) but couldn't see any stitching issues, Podzemnik, if you have see any, would you mind please adding a note? thank you Poco a poco (talk) 11:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. See the road at the bottom.--Peulle (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Peulle and Ivar and fixed all of them. Regarding the cloning issues, not sure what you mean Ivar, there has been no cloning, --Poco a poco (talk) 10:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poco, I'm fairly sure the horizon is still broken, and to some quite an extent. What stitch soft do you use as a curiosity? Do you level your tripod head before shooting? Don't take it wrong, but you seem to struggle a lot to get these horizons right. There are a few FP which should need a review because that's the kind of error which should be a no go IMO. - Benh (talk) 08:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benh: that there are issues with the horizon in my images is a fact, I see and accept that criticism, especially if the way I get it is the way you did . I took this image handheld, probably that was not a good idea. I used Photoshop Lr and just tried this image also with PTGui Pro but I didn't find the result very different, to be honest. I just gave it a new try and balanced the horizon and also improved the perspective in the middle right. --Poco a poco (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I (quickly) looked closely and the verticals look fine, so I'm not getting why I feel the left part is higher than the right. Maybe it's me, or this comes from inconsistencies in the sources. But handheld here should have been fine (no parallax error risks for me) - Benh (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support given that the stitching errors (see notes) are fixed. --Aristeas (talk) 09:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are fixed now, Aristeas, thank you Poco a poco (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry if my wording was misleading: The image notes were added by Iifar and Peulle, I just mentioned them.) Thank you for fixing! --Aristeas (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I got you right at the first time, Aristeas. Poco a poco (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not really as sharp anywhere as similar cityscape panoramas that have made FP. Daniel Case (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination well, thank you all, Poco a poco (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Poco a poco (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mountain gorilla (Gorilla beringei beringei) female eating root.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2020 at 09:41:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family : Hominidae (Great Apes)
Info Let's hope these big guys don't get infected. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support King Kong 🦍-- Basile Morin (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely picture, remember me to Gorillas in the Mist --Wilfredor (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Killarnee (T•1•2) 03:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Samuele2002 (Talk!) 12:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 05:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sonya7iv (talk) 11:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 26 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals#Family : Hominidae (Great Apes)

File:Parque nacional Torres del Paine, 2019 0387.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2020 at 19:18:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Chile
Info Tourist path "Ruta W" near Albergue Chileno in the Torres del Paine National Park, Patagonia, Chile. All by me. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 19:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 19:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm sorry, but this composition is doing nothing for me. The right crop feels random, the sky isn't helping, the trees are low and there's just nothing very striking to me about the scene. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The S curve is nice, but it doesn't actually lead anywhere. Also a little more space on the right would help. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately I agree with the others. It's a nice, peaceful scene, but it really needs a clear focal point. As KoH says the s-curve leads nowhere in particular. Cmao20 (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might work better with the left cropped out (see note). Daniel Case (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]

File:Purple-gaped Honeyeater - Patchewollock.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2020 at 18:03:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Meliphagidae_(Honeyeaters)
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Ivar (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Ivar, is John happy with you editing his images? Charles (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Should we be considering this image without knowing the answer to this question? What's your opinion about that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't think so. I wouldn't want anyone fixing my images without asking first. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Zcebeci (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding photo again. Cmao20 (talk) 21:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Killarnee (T•1•2) 20:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose current "minor fix" version, the original upload is sharper, and promoting this version would be a disservice to the author.--BevinKacon (talk) 06:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sonya7iv (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bridge of Remembrance during the sunset, Christchurch, New Zealand.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2020 at 22:58:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#New_Zealand
Info All by me. It's Bridge of Remembrance, a war memorial, under pink evening light during the pink sunset. Christchurch, New Zealand. -- Podzemnik (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like pink. -- Podzemnik (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice color combination. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 06:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Red for all the senseless blood spilled.--Ermell (talk) 07:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 09:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - More affecting because of the eerie empty streets, like in New York (not quite that empty here, perhaps, but in a city of over 8 million, it's been really spooky). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poignant Cmao20 (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 03:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 06:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Killarnee (T•1•2) 03:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Samuele2002 (Talk!) 13:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 19:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Illuminated wooden shelf with many glass jars containing cookies for sale in Tokyo.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2020 at 03:14:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nicely done, and I want some of those rice crackers now! :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Expensive :-) Basile Morin (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cmao20 (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop is not balanced, nothing special. —kallerna (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I agree with Kallerna, the crop is not appealing. Particularly the blueish part at the bottom. Crop suggestion added. --Kreuz schnabel 14:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd be OK with that crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion but I prefer the current crop, to see the entire shelf. I may remove the blue pipe, though, not so visible now, in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 19:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fuente de la Plaza Nueva, Liubliana, Eslovenia, 2017-04-14, DD 50-52 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2020 at 16:51:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Fountains
Info Night view of the baroque Turjak Fountain with the Ljubljana Castle in the background, Ljubljana, Slovenia. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cbrescia (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great quality for a night shot. Cmao20 (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support one step back and the shot would have been even better (fountain circle would have not been cropped). --Ivar (talk) 06:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice, but needs a lot of noise reduction work e.g. just above the trees and around the flag. Charles (talk) 08:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles: Done Poco a poco (talk) 09:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better, thanks. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Would prefer blue hour, the contrast is just too much. The view is nice, but not spectacular. Technically fine. —kallerna (talk)
Kallerna: I've reduced the contrast a bit Poco a poco (talk) 09:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to judge the composition as presented, rather than asking for a blue hour photo. —kallerna! Still OK to oppose of course on contrast and 'not spectacular'. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

blue hour is part of composition. It can make for a more pleasant image - Benh (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Isiwal (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sonya7iv (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, blue hour would have been nice but I think this image allows the veil effect with the fountain while at the same time avoiding the problem of too many unavoidably blown highlights to give us a nice feel for this place in the genuine nighttime hours as opposed to twilight or longer-exposure false twilight. Daniel Case (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 19:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jiří Pavlenka, CZE-NIR 2019-10-14 (6).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2020 at 09:44:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Association football (soccer)
Info created & uploaded by T.Bednarz - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 09:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 09:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I don't see anything here that makes this photo extraordinary. It's just a nice photo of a perfectly ordinary goalkeeper sitting on the ground.--Peulle (talk) 10:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. Good shot but I don't see what makes it great for FP, the best sports shots have a little more going on. Cmao20 (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. And one of the busiest background spots just behind his face :) --Kreuz schnabel 15:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Thanks for the nomination, Tomer T! --T.Bednarz (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Zero drama. Did the keeper just make a tough save? Blow one? Lose a close game? We don't know. Daniel Case (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kiruna kyrka August 2017 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2020 at 06:49:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings/Ceilings#Sweden
Info Kiruna Church is a church building in Kiruna, the northernmost town of Sweden, and is one of Sweden's largest wooden buildings. The church exterior is built in a Gothic Revival style, while the altar is in Art Nouveau. We have a FP of the exterior.
Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A church a bit different from most that we see here, and quality is great. Cmao20 (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just a little detail providing an impression of the entire building. --Kreuz schnabel 14:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry this image has a problem, the wooden frame at the top left corner is blue, and it's immediately visible from the thumbnail. Not well done. Also extremely contrasted, so no wow -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support love the geometry of this — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think some of the CA on the lower windows at top and bottom could be fixed. Daniel Case (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 19:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chondrocidaris brevispina.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2020 at 04:03:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class_:_Echinoidea
Info created by FredD - uploaded by FredD - nominated by FredD -- FredD (talk) 04:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- FredD (talk) 04:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blown highlights, artificial background, and the white balance seems too warm -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile, also the framing is not perfect, with the sea urchin far closer to the top of the frame than the bottom. I don't think this is too far off FP though, the depth of field could be better but it's still OK, and the subject is very interesting. Perhaps a better (less unbalanced) crop with the highlights pulled back and the white balance fixed might be close to FP. Cmao20 (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCmao20 & Basile Morin, I'm not a pro in picture editing, so don't hesitate to propose edited versions. The picture does need some re-framing indeed (I pivoted it a little, that's why now it seems too far). The background is lab black background, not "artificial" (no deep-etch). FredD (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A background that is color #000000 everywhere means it's artificial. -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...Or that it used a lab picture device (glass + black velvet) with overexposition of the subject, such as in any professional lab picture (see also here, pictures from the same collection using the same device). FredD (talk) 03:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The picture linked above seems correctly lit, whereas this one suffers from a harsh lighting source, creating reflections. A soft light would have produced better results. As it seems to have been photographed in interior, the use of a tripod could also have offered a wider depth of field, for more details of the spines -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per others. Daniel Case (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Balkan fritillary (Boloria graeca balcanica) underside Bulgaria 2a on epilobium.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2020 at 13:59:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question - This really doesn't seem as sharp as your usual butterfly FP candidates, except on some of the flowers. Is this species especially hard to photograph? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Balkan fritillary is not one of your everyday butterflies. You’ve got to make a real effort to find it and photograph it. It lives at the top of a few mountains in the Alps and the Balkans, typically from 1,800m to 2,400. So we headed to a ski resort in Bulgaria, to Borovets in the Rila Mountains. The highest skilift is Yastrebets and the butterfly lives close to the gondola top station at 2,369m. It only flies around lunchtime on sunny days in July and August when there’s not too much wind. Tricky conditions to find at the top of an exposed mountain top. As shown here, it's quite small. Charlesjsharp (talk)

I see! The size of the butterfly would be good to add to the file description (and the Wikipedia article, if you're so inclined). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be OR unless I can find an authoritative source. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not OR in the file description -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Certainly the aperture F/4 shortens the DoF. But the head is in focus, like much of the wing. Composition okay -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support But note that there is a typo in the filename and description. -- B2Belgium (talk) 07:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Will change file name after nom. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Samuele2002 (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 13:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good image for a small butterfly and one that's challenging to photograph. Cmao20 (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 19:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)

File:Cranberry Marsh panorama5.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2020 at 17:55:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Ontario
Info: Cranberry Marsh after a very energetic cold front rolled over. All by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dramatic photo. Cmao20 (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What is so special in this photo? Only a dull, dead marsh. The crop is rather random. Techically: oversharpened, slightly underexposed, no detail in the dark parts. —kallerna (talk) 09:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kallerna. --Basotxerri (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kallerna --Fischer.H (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kallerna. -- Karelj (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The clouds make this photo a FP --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice motif but I'd like to see more special light. It also looks overprocessed, perhaps too much sharpening / clarity / dehaze. Also, the water level is not straight. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: straightened the water level, recovered the shadows a bit, raised brightness slightly. And I don't use clarity or dehaze. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per opposers. I was also thinking about opposing your previous nom with similar composition with the horizon cutting the picture in the middle. - Benh (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 19:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak regretful oppose per Podzemnik. Daniel Case (talk) 04:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kallerna. Renata3 (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Medaille Conservatoire Dijon.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2020 at 20:37:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Money & Seals
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Palauenc05 -- Palauenc05 (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looks extremely brightly lit to me. Is it showing up that way to other people? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I took quite a few shots under different light conditions, natural and artificial light. This one I considered the best as it displays the colour of the medal as it really is. --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm complaining about glare, not color. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low resolution, harsh light -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above Poco a poco (talk) 10:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - harsh light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Palauenc05 (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schulensee Ostteil.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2020 at 17:06:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Other objects in landscapes
Info all by me. Of course, taken with an iPhone and a bit spontaneously, but I love this picture. Hopefully your reviews could dissuade me from it 😉. Habitator terrae 🌍 17:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Trees on the right and some of the water is/are extremely unsharp, composition OK but not outstanding. Why do you think this is one of the finest pictures on the site? It's a good idea to submit to COM:QIC and/or COM:Photography critiques first. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Very unsharp. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Question really to unsharp for this resolution (4.032×3.024), so this doesn't match the guidelines??? Habitator terrae 🌍 00:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The trees on the right in your photo are very blurry. The first one you linked I would say is very marginal and represents our bare minimum on technical quality (and is definitely sharper than yours). The second one was promoted back in 2008 and clearly doesn't meet our modern standards; I will nominate it for delisting. The third one is not very big, but we do give night shots a tiny bit more leeway as they are harder to capture with the full detail of a day shot (though not to the extent of the second one). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Nearly everything within the frame is blurry – in the typical way of phone cameras, whose tiny sensors have to strongly reduce noise at the expense of useful resolution (a highly resoluted blur is not useful), and even more so in low-light situations. Please have a look of FPs of the same resolution at 100 percent view to get an idea what kind of detail sharpness is expected here on an outstanding pic. Further, the crop is poor (especially the cut-off object on the lower right). Sorry if my wording sounds rude, no personal offense intended. Pity you didn’t have a better camera with you to capture this beautiful scene :) --Kreuz schnabel 07:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bolivar Lighthouse -- Point Bolivar, Galveston, Texas.jpg

File:Trinity Hall as seen from George Petersen Rose Garden.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2020 at 02:15:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#United_States
Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful place Cmao20 (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice place but not really special to me (at least from this POV) and both, the ligthing (with most of the building in shadow) and the composition (with the cropped cypress), not really outstanding --Poco a poco (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re:cropped cypress – @Poco a poco, as photographers we always have to make decisions about what to show and how to present the subject of a photo to the viewer. In this example, I had to ask myself: "What do I want the subject of the image to be? Is it the setting as a whole (with the tree that grew enormously over the past couple of years) or do I want to highlight the relationship between the rose garden and the university building?". And, just for everybody to understand the context better, here's an image with the full view: Trinity Hall and cypress composition example.jpg. After going back and forth, I decided that I didn't want the single tree dominate the picture. I decided that my image shouldn't be about a cypress in front of a brick building in Northern California. Instead, I tried to show the interaction between Trinity Hall and the rose garden planted in the 1950s. So, to be clear: I accept your judgement – in the end it's a matter of taste whether we like an image or not. – Maybe it's worth mentioning that in cases like this I'd rather have us remember that most of us here are excellent photographers and – while we make mistakes every now and then – we most often have choices presented to us that drive how we're showing a subject. I'm bringing this up because I've seen too many comments here on Commons that give the impression that "the photographer made a mistake" rather than "we don't agree with the decision the photographer has made". After all, let's not forget that feedback could also look like this: "I see you've cut off the cypress. I think that's not adding to the picture, but I'd like to learn more about why you chose to do so. Could you please elaborate further?" Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frank I indeed judged the result, which didn't convinced me at all, instead of wondering why to chose to do so. I'm probably in the meanwhile used to get harsh and rude comments about my pictures, that (without getting that far though) I may be getting too cold in the way I comment pictures here. I'm sorry for that, my intention was not to hurt your feelings. Poco a poco (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Good quality, but something's missing for an FP. --A.Savin 20:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Same. I'm not seeing something which makes this one stand out. Not even really sure what to focus on. - Benh (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Too ordinary. Composition and light. And the tree in the middle, cut at the top, is quite unpleasant -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vista de Werfen y Tenneck, Austria, 2019-05-18, DD 41-44 PAN.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2020 at 17:06:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Austria
Info Cable car of the Eisriesenwelt moving down towards the Salzach valley with the villages of Werfen (left) and Tenneck (right) in the back, Salzburg (state), Austria. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Big sharp photo with lots to see. Cmao20 (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20, with the caveat that I'd rather see the tops of all the mountains rather than having some of them bleed into white clouds. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose imho light conditions were not favorable, sky is partly overexposed, perspective distortion on both sides. --Ivar (talk) 04:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I also think the clipped whites are a bit too much. Plus the lighting is a bit dull. And I would crop much of the right part to make the most of that otherwise impressive view. - Benh (talk) 07:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dull light. —kallerna (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Poco a poco (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Heilig-Kreuz-Kirche, Uhrwerk -- 2019 -- 3056.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2020 at 18:18:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects#Horology
Info The clock in Holy Cross Church in Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. A sharp, high-resolution photo of a beautiful and intricate mechanism. created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Though it’s a technically good image (of a fascinating piece of machinery of course), it still lacks excellence in my eyes. Mainly the lighting is too harsh, causing reflections and dark shadows, and the wooden beams on the left are just distracting. A (nearly) still subject like this could have been taken better. I happened to take File:Aue Friedenskirche Uhrwerk.jpg a few weeks ago without much preparation, I even didn’t have a tripod with me. While my pic is far from being nominated here, I think I got a somehow better (even) lighting. --Kreuz schnabel 07:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not a better lighting with these blown highlights. Big technical problem on the contrary -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IMO it depends on the church. The clockwork is not easily accessible in every church. --XRay ^talk 07:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Agree with Kreuzschnabel, also I don't fancy the beam in the bottom. —kallerna (talk) 09:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I actually like the lighting; it models fine details quite nicely. --Aristeas (talk) 09:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Thank you, Cmao20, for nominating! --XRay ^talk 06:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sonya7iv (talk) 11:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 19:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tambourine Dancer by Edward Mason Eggleston (1882-1941).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2020 at 16:31:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/People#Paintings
Info created by Jacqke - uploaded by Jacqke - nominated by Jacqke -- Jacqke (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacqke (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't know whether I'll vote on this nomination (I prefer some of his prints to this painting), but I did add basic information on medium and size from the Heritage Auctions entry. That's important to include, because otherwise, someone looking at this might think it's some kind of print. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ikan Kekek, I like some of his prints better too. I chose a fashion image, but perhaps a different image could be submitted later. I’m adding them to the Category:Edward Mason Eggleston as I verify out-of-copyright status.Jacqke (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renata3 (talk) 06:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for a canvas size of 38.25 x 30.25 in, I would expect higher resolution, it also needs a minor repair with photoshop.--BevinKacon (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @BevinKacon: For this kind of image (i.e. a public domain image of a privately held painting auctioned off) the resolution is incredible, just about impossible to get unless one is standing there himself with a camera. I can work the image in photoshop; What did you have in mind? I’m new to submitting here and learning local standards. Thanks, Jacqke (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Big white spots everywhere, worst ones are on the left shoe and the torso.--BevinKacon (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Two-wheeled open carriage Onet-le-Chateau 07.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2020 at 15:24:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Other_land_vehicles
Info IMO a tremendous abstract photo - I love the shapes, colours and shadows here. It took me a minute to realise what I was actually looking at. created by Tournasol7 - uploaded by Tournasol7 - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice photo @Tournasol7: ! At first I thought it was taken by @W.carter: . Seven Pandas (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's working for me. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Podzemnik Poco a poco (talk) 10:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacqke (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 19:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cart-able. Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Imperial headgear Nguyen era NMVH EDAV.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2020 at 23:13:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Clothing and textiles
Info created and uploaded by Marie-Lan Nguyen - nominated by A -- A^talk 23:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A^talk 23:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too dark, details are either blurry or in the dark. Unfortunate, because item is great! Renata3 (talk) 05:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Brightened version is better, but still unsharp. And what's going with file description page? I only see a red error: Lua error in Module:Wikidata_label at line 140: Tried to write global eLink. Renata3 (talk) 07:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I tend to agree with Renata3, but if you want to try brightening somewhat, I'm willing to have a look. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: I tried to brighten up the picture a bit. I don't know if that's enough.--A^talk 16:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Thank you. It's better, and it might pass if nominated at COM:QIC (I'm not sure, but I'd vote for it there). I quite honestly don't think it's an outstanding enough photo of this beautiful object to be one of the best photos on the site, so I have to consider it not an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I like this photo and it's nice to see it presented here, it's fine for a Wikipedia article or for use in other Commons projecs, but I don't think it's among the best on the site. Too many areas of it are blurry/out of focus for this resolution. Cmao20 (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao20. --Fischer.H (talk) 08:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for nominating my picture. The object is very impressive, but the picture is only so-so. I did what I could without tripod or proper lighting. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yellow-vented Bluebonnet 12- Patchewollock.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2020 at 04:44:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family_:_Psittaculidae_(True_Parrots)
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Ivar (talk) 04:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 04:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bottom half of the bird is too far out of focus. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Overall I like it, and the focus is good on the head. I think the whole pic could do with a tiny bit of sharpening tbh, but probably best to let the author do that if he wants. But it's best for a picture to be slightly soft than oversharpened IMO, you can always apply sharpening yourself but the reverse is far harder to fix. Cmao20 (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Nice bird but per Charles Poco a poco (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Ivar (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ivar (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Church of Our Lady of the Assumption in Boussac (10).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2020 at 17:36:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#France
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bar has been set pretty high for church interiors, and I don't think this meets it. At just 15.8 MP, it really needs to be perfect at pixel level. The image is kind of soft and there is color noise all around. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Wonderful motif, but oppose per KoH. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's OK for me, not all church interiors need to be at the Diliff/DXR level. I think we are a bit spoilt to their quality (possibly my fault for nominating so many of them!). The altar and stained glass is pretty sharp here, there's some of colour noise in the shadows, but it's not too bad. If you were using this image to illustrate the church no one would think it anything less than high quality. I also like the higher perspective as opposed to the pew-level perspective of most church FPs - nice variety. And beautiful motif of course. Cmao20 (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 08:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it would be good, it if wasn't for it being off centered... - Benh (talk) 10:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Might be an FP if it was the only church interior we had, per Cmao, but that's far from the case and to me the bar has been set. Daniel Case (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Echeveria harmsii in Botanischer Garten Muenster.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2020 at 17:41:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Plants#Family_:_Crassulaceae
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Arbitrary-looking crops. Sharpness and light aren't exceptional to me, either, but the composition is the main problem for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately per Ikan, the bottom crop doesn't seem right and it throws the composition off. Cmao20 (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In addition to other problems noted, weird CA-like haloes. Daniel Case (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pandion haliaetus carolinensis attack.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2020 at 15:46:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes
Info created by Sonya7iv - uploaded by Sonya7iv - nominated by Sonya7iv -- Sonya7iv (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sonya7iv (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. Big wow. Amazing capture.--Peulle (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Big big wow indeed! - Benh (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent moment, what is she/he catching ?--Wilfredor (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are the gps coordinates,thanks --Sonya7iv (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - He means what animal or bird is the osprey attacking. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sorry I understood where. thank you --Sonya7iv (talk) 07:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Do you remember what kind of animal or bird it was attacking? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question Brilliant action shot. Can you tell us about the processing, please, and how you got the background. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More or less in this way [2]...what do you want to know exactly? Thanks --Sonya7iv (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered if the background is natural and the amount of noise reduction you used. It seems quite soft all over for such a high-end camera, but I know nothing of full-frame mirrorless bodies or 500mm lenses! Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The background is the water of the lake, it was natural. Honestly, for these photos at higher ISO, because speed is much more important, I probably have used some light noise reduction, however the lens is a Sony FE 200-600mm f / 5.6-6.3 G OSS. Thanks --Sonya7iv (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks very much. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome , thanks--Sonya7iv (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support wow - wow. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Huge wow. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot! --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support POTY contender, probably — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--Sonya7iv (talk) 07:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support All has been said. Cmao20 (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great catch -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Does the picture series go on? Great shot!--Ermell (talk) 06:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surely! Thank you--Sonya7iv (talk) 07:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Isiwal (talk) 09:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 19:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 06:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing! -- RootlessCosmopolitain (talk)
Thanks, but not eligible to vote yet. --A.Savin 11:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 26 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Botryoidal Purple Grape Agate Chalcedony from Indonesia.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2020 at 11:54:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Rocks_and_minerals#Minerals
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Ivar (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What is it sitting on? The reflection of the object at the bottom is fine, but it makes for a little bit of a muddy rectangle around it. Maybe some reflective surface that's not quite as big as the photographed surface? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Background is not perfect but this is a remarkable and really interesting mineral captured in a very sharp photo. Cmao20 (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very beautiful agate, and the photo is good enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But this is what I see in the file summary; please, anyone who knows how, fix it: "Lua error in Module:Wikidata_label at line 52: Tried to write global yesno." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sonya7iv (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 01:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Killarnee (T•1•2) 16:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Rocks_and_minerals#Minerals

File:Goldgelber Zitterling-Tremella mesenterica stack32 -20191227-RM-152807.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2020 at 11:06:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family : Tremellaceae
Info created & uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 11:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 11:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nomination.--Ermell (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 18:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Probably about as well-captured as possible. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you please check the left side. I think there is a 1-2 pixels long white strip. It's following the left edge of the photo. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Yes, you were right. Thanks for the hint.--Ermell (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for fixing it. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow --Sonya7iv (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Any information about the size? --Llez (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 06:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Bay Centre, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada 004.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2020 at 04:55:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Canada
Info All by me. It's an interior of The Bay Centre, Victoria, BC, Canada. I quite like the light and the composition. -- Podzemnik (talk) 04:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 04:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, IMO the light is too harsh and the composition too busy. Too much of the picture is in the shade. No wow, not special enough. —kallerna (talk) 05:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful composition. Where kallerna sees "too busy", I see a rich, very satisfying combination of forms. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow is subjective, but I'm not sure how a space like this could be captured any better. It's bright and airy - could easily illustrate this place in an architectural magazine. Tiny bit of purple CA in the bottom left corner might be worth correcting. Cmao20 (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much in shadow for me, I'm afraid. My eyes are drawn to the bright left side, throwing an otherwise symmetric composition off balance. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, not enough wow fro me here. --Ivar (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Too busy for me. Do you have other images from this series that are less busy? --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 09:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can see why you'd want to take this picture, but I would suggest you return and retake it, per King, when the light is not going to be creating all these complicated and divergent patterns of shadow. Daniel Case (talk) 06:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kallerna. The composition is too busy and feels crammed. Maybe a wider shot with more space at the top and sides would help. Also agree that sunlight is unfortunate. Renata3 (talk) 06:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit "Harry Potter"-Style? Habitator terrae 🌍 19:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not special enough -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Denizli Teleferik, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2020 at 11:18:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

A gondola of Denizli Cableway
Interior of a gondola of Denizli Cableway

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Machines
Info Exterior and interior of a gondola of the cableway (Teleferik) in Denizli, Turkey ---- all by A.Savin --A.Savin 11:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 11:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Very interesting set. I guess it was raining during the interior shot? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not rain, but a bit snowfall straight before. --A.Savin 12:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK. It's a difference in weather as well as orientation, but I'm good with it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Individually, the images are not exceptional IMO. As a set, they would benefit from more synergy - aligning the compositions in a way that it screams this is inside, that is outside. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as a set - just don't seem to mesh well together and second image is weird composition. I would Support the first image on its own. Renata3 (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only one vote per user, second vote fixed -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support --Piotr Bart (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- RootlessCosmopolitain (talk) 03:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but not eligible to vote yet. --A.Savin 11:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Perhaps just not the best weather -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abandoned car at the Salt Marsh (10852p).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2020 at 04:39:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Other#United_States
Info I've been trying to explore areas of New York City that are both interesting and have very few people around (social distancing, etc.). This is a salt marsh in Gerritsen Beach, a rather isolated peninsula in Brooklyn. The shore is littered with shells and cars, and there was nobody at all around. Unfortunately I stepped in mud up to my knee shortly after taking this picture, but I was glad to have found this weird part of the city. We'll see if others think it as interesting a scene as I do. :) 3 frames stitched together, created/uploaded/nominated by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like a painting. Is it perhaps a little too bright? Cmao20 (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, looks like a painting. --Aristeas (talk) 09:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is in NYC?? Wow! Renata3 (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the city's southern shore, in Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island, there are a lot of places like this. It would be amazing if there was a place like this in Manhattan, yes. Daniel Case (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The land over the water appears over-exposed. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded a new version. It's not significantly different, but I took a tiny notch off of the exposure there and brought the highlights down a little. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment vaguely reminds me en:Rhein_II. Maybe you will become a millionaire if you sell it ;) - Benh (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral That looks a little bit bright and harsh but it's something a bit different for sure. - Benh (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 19:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case and Vulphere: It looks like Daniel added an unsigned s, which Vulphere signed. Seems like an easily resolved mistake, but I suspect I shouldn't do so as the nominator. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose no wow. —kallerna (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not a traditional composition, but more like something you might find in a modern-ish art gallery. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I disagree with Kallerna — there's quite a bit of wow! -- RootlessCosmopolitain (talk) 03:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but not eligible to vote yet. --A.Savin 11:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:"Everything is Going to be Alright" artwork, Christchurch Art Gallery, Christchurch, New Zealand.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2020 at 07:04:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Statues_outdoors
Info All by me. It's an artwork by Martin Creed. I like the artwork and the simple message that it's carrying for the city that has been through the earthquakes, terror attack and now the pandemic. -- Podzemnik (talk) 07:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 07:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support To be checked, but it would make a nice addition to articles about the Helvetica typeface - Benh (talk) 07:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a timely message. Renata3 (talk) 07:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done! --Aristeas (talk) 10:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 12:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Already thought this should be featured when I saw it on Quality Images. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 05:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PIA22946-Jupiter-RedSpot-JunoSpacecraft-20190212.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2020 at 09:30:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

This striking view of Jupiters Great Red Spot and turbulent southern hemisphere was captured by NASAs Juno spacecraft as it performed a close pass of the gas giant planet.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
Info created by NASA/JPL-Caltech/SwRI/MSSS/Kevin M. Gill - uploaded by Drbogdan - nominated by JCP2018 -- JCP2018 (talk) 09:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JCP2018 (talk) 09:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have seen this here already. This is a very misleading image. It's taken from very close and projected to look like a sphere so we process it as being seen from very far away. I think this should be mentioned clearly. - Benh (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The border between the planet and the background is poorly done. Also, the resolution is not high enough to impress me, given the amount of background shown.--Peulle (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems to be a very impressive and worthy image of Jupiter imo. - Drbogdan (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have added the info Benh mentions to the description, I don't know if it needs to be mentioned more prominently, but lots of famous space shots are a long way away from single-frame photos (e.g. the famous view of Venus is a computer-generated mosaic of stitched radar images) so a bit of manipulation doesn't bother me as long as it's true to reality. This seems an impressive image of Jupiter to me, and although the angle of view is a bit different to usual with this planet, the resolution is higher than the existing FP. Cmao20 (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per Cmao20. --MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Samuele2002 (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support An interesting angle on the largest planet ... usually, the Red Spot is seen in the equatorial regions. Daniel Case (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 19:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- RootlessCosmopolitain (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but not eligible to vote yet. --A.Savin 11:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy#Planets_(including_dwarf_planets)

File:Point Wolfe Bridge.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2020 at 20:55:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Canada
Info: Point Wolfe Bridge, Fundy National Park, New Brunswick, Canada. All by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please consider adjusting the brightness level. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, adjusting down, I presume? The foreground boulders do seem a bit too bright. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it looks dark and underexposed. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Maybe the light is a bit dull, but a nice scene nonetheless. Cmao20 (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A nice shot, but not a wow for me. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not special enough --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: brightness adjusted, Frank Schulenburg --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something still looks a bit weird and I admit that I'm having a hard time to describe it. Have you selectively darkened the sky? --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a wrong version, please have another look. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, no wow, seems very ordinary view and composition. Renata3 (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Peaceful, green and nice, but I don't think this is an FP yet. I will suggest a crop, as I think that eliminating much of the right side and focusing this more on the bridge would work better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Maybe it's the moment we're in, but I find this very peaceful and relaxing. Wish that upper right wasn't so unsharp though. Daniel Case (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And while the suggested crop would moot that issue, it would come at the cost of the off-center subject that I think helps make this work. Daniel Case (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info: square crop suggested by Ikan Kekek. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose imho this crop makes it worse. If I were to crop, I would cut the green bushes at the bottom. Renata3 (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yeah, I think Renata3's suggestion is good, though I disagree that this crop makes it worse. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Second thought: No, I don't agree about the patches of grass. The patches of grass in this version provide places for the eyes to travel in the lower corners and serve as somewhat of a counterpart to the sky, improving the form. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Renata3. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 23:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oculus (41331p).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2020 at 03:32:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors#United_States
Info Interior of the WTC Transportation Hub (also known as the Oculus). (3 frames stitched). created/uploaded/nominated by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I prefer your other FP, File:Oculus (41323p).jpg, much more. My main objection to this image is the blob at the top (for those of you who aren't from NYC, it's a set of stairs/escalators). It's visually heavy and weakens the feel of a grandiose, open space. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand not liking that part. I think it adds an interesting contrast in geometry. And yes, if people are trying to orient themselves, this is standing underneath the same kind of platform visible on the other side of the space (just without an elevator, if I recall correctly). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 09:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per KoH, the underside of the stairs is a bit distracting. Cmao20 (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 19:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, agree with KoH. The chunk of stairs at the top is distracting. Renata3 (talk) 05:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above Poco a poco (talk) 10:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it might still work with the landing cropped out. I don't blame you for trying that, but it doesn't seem to have worked. Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. I did what I wanted to do. The cropped version would be more like the one KoH linked, and I wasn't trying to do the same thing here. It's fine if it doesn't work for others. Certainly if someone else wants to crop and nominate, that would be fine, but I don't think I will. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Works for me. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. —kallerna (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose First problem, there's already a FP of this place, which looks immediately similar. So, it's difficult not to compare. The other one works well due to the interesting sides, in my view. Although you show here more ceiling, the heavy block in concrete eats 40% of the composition, and is not really an attractive feature in my opinion. We wonder why it's here and how the subject is behind. However, after both images, I think another FP is possible, if it includes more ceiling (but not this part with ventilations). Another view with a larger angle, to show simultaneously more of the architecture of the top, and more at the sides. -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cicadidae with exuvia, immediately after moulting, in Laos, side view.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2020 at 02:55:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Order : Hemiptera (True Bugs)
Info Cicadidae with exuvia, immediately after moulting. Created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Fascinating. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Staggering. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wow, amazing detail! Would it be possible to brighten up the exposure a bit? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support also think the exposure could be bumped just a little, but certainly support regardless — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Done -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support (focus stacked image template added). --Ivar (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. I'm not a big fan of this template, and like many other photographers here, rarely use it, for these reasons. Instead, the details of the technique are always provided in the description, and categories. We may improve it, though. Thank you -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow! Don't even dare opening it full size - Benh (talk) 06:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Cayambe (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Samuele2002 (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unfair!! Can find anything like this is my garden. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I find it fair, if you can... Just do it :-) Basile Morin (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Isiwal (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Cmao20 (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral underexposed, the insect seems to be bordered by a white aura, some legs have been poorly trimmed (poor layer blending), excessive sharpness filter, chromatic aberration with purple tones and posterization on the black background --Wilfredor (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it could use a bit more love and attention. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't find the shot appealing in a human-made environment but the level of detail is very nice Poco a poco (talk) 10:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Poco, I totally agree. Although I'm somewhat grateful this specimen saved me worse 🧻

-- Basile Morin (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sonya7iv (talk) 11:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 19:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose underexposed, ugly surroundings. —kallerna (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it could be brightened even more. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Killarnee (T•1•2) 16:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 26 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods#Order : Hemiptera (True Bugs)

File:Cnemaspis chanthaburiensis, Chanthaburi rock gecko - Khao Khitchakut National Park.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2020 at 14:29:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family_:_Gekkonidae_(Geckos)
Info created by Rushenb - uploaded by Moon rabbit 365 - nominated by Ivar (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Very sharp on the head but the DoF is too shallow for me, it leaves the entire tail completely out of focus. The big blurry area in the foreground is a bit disturbing. Cmao20 (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tail and legs out of focus. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark, sorry. Underexposed -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Ivar (talk) 09:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ivar (talk) 09:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pandion haliaetus carolinensis in the water.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2020 at 07:35:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes#Genus : Pandion
Info created & uploaded by Sonya7iv - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support there are some quality issues that I'm aware of, but I think the overall quality is pretty good, and the composition is too unique and impressive to pass on this as an FP. -- Tomer T (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree. It would be nice to have the entire reflection, but if Sonya7iv doesn't have a photo with the whole reflection, we should feature this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunately no, I only have the upper part but it is only water. Thank you--Sonya7iv (talk) 09:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Crop should be symmetrical left and right. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to that. I'm fine with the bottom crop, but on the horizontal axis the bird should be centered. --El Grafo (talk) 10:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Better? Thank you....sorry for my mistakes --Sonya7iv (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, much better → Support --El Grafo (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm a tad skeptical about the processing (probably the demosaicking) as chromatic issues can be spotted on all the droplets and fine details (and probably this can be improved, as this shot deserves). But this is definitely another incredible catch. - Benh (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Likewise, it is quite heavily processed and I would prefer more sharpness left around the head - the head was very soft in the other FP nom too, but we must promote/decline what is presented by the photographer (except for asking for chamges like crops/NR). And this is a great composition. We could of course have an editing competition elsewhere where RAW images are offered to all to see who's the best post-processor! Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obviously not perfect, but still a very impressive and difficult shot, and probably a strong candidate for POTY. Cmao20 (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support incredible!, stunning! Je-str (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, if you had got the whole reflexion this one would be a serious candidate for POTY 2020 Poco a poco (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Benh and Charlesjsharp. Exceptional picture but heavily processed -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Peulle (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support 🦅 --Killarnee (T•1•2) 16:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support despite some technical shortcomings ... it's just too good for them to matter (I can almost see a band name/logo and the album title between the wingtips). Daniel Case (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 10:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ahmad^talk 22:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pelecanus rufescens - Étang de Bages-Sigean 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2020 at 15:55:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes#Family : Pelecanidae (Pelicans)
Info I never saw this before: twenty pelicans in flight formation; created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You should indicate that these are not wild birds (they don't exist in France). I assume they are from the feral population breeding in the Sigean zoo. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done --Llez (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Very pleasant form, and I'm tempted to support, but is there a category of multiple birds in flight, such that I can search for FPs in that category and compare them? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Please have a look on the category Pelecanus in flight (where I added this picture meanwhile) and it's subcategories. I found no picture (neither in this category nor in the subcategories) which shows such a clear formation of so many pelicans --Llez (talk) 08:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Thanks. The category I was really looking for was Category:Birds in flight, but I found it from the subcategory you linked. The only flock of birds in flight that looks sharper is File:Rock doves in flight.jpg, but I like this formation and I'm satisfied that it's well within the level of quality that's been demanded of related FPs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks, and I had only the chance for a single shot. No possibility of repetition with better settings --Llez (talk) 09:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Here in the US, it's fairly common to see pelicans (P. occidentalis at least) in formation, so for me it's hard to see a lot of "wow" here. That said, as with Ikan I looked for what other similar kinds of pictures we have, and was surprised we don't have many high-quality images of birds in formation (regardless of species), so I'm conflicted. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Not necessarily that rare a sight as Rhododendrites comments, but then again, that doesn't make much difference if few people have bothered to take a pic of it. Quality is fine for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 09:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice --Sonya7iv (talk) 11:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 19:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As said, not that rare, and the quality isn't quite there (sharpness, underexposure, CA). —kallerna (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I searched for a positive vote of Kallerna in all actual FP nominations. None! But a lot of "Oppose". --Llez (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And? There is no need to support a nomination with 20 supporting votes, it is going to succeed. Do you think my opposing reasons are not valid? —kallerna (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No. But I meant not only nominiations with 20 supporting votes, but all, also those with only two or three, and I can't imagine that none of all the nominations is worth to be featured in your eyes. But let's finish this discussion now. --Llez (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- RootlessCosmopolitain (talk)
Thanks, but not eligible to vote yet. --A.Savin 11:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes#Family : Pelecanidae (Pelicans)

File:Wandeling over het Hulshorsterzand-Hulshorsterheide 07-03-2020. (d.j.b) 16.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2020 at 16:08:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural# Netherlands Gelderland.
Info If possible, dead trees remain or stand in the drift sand area. Then more biodiversity is created.
All by me -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition. Cmao20 (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too common for the Veluwe --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support Perhaps the highlights in the clouds could be tamped down a bit. Daniel Case (talk) 01:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too ordinary for me too. The light is not special enough, perhaps also the view -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special. —kallerna (talk) 11:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kallerna. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:31. Ulica - Zielony Teatr Biszkeku (Kirgistan) - Karagul botom - 20180705 1735 2108 DxO.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2020 at 17:42:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info Actor of The Green Theatre of Bishkek in the show "Karagul bottom (Song of stones)". All by me -- Jakubhal 17:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jakubhal 17:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't know what he is doing but for me no wow. IMO it is also not an extraordinary good photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Michielverbeek, a good shot but I don't find it quite interesting enough for FP. It might be better if we knew a bit more about what's going on too, it would certainly add more value to the photo. Cmao20 (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Michielverbeek and Cmao20, thank you for your reviews. The actor is playing archery with imagined bow. I have updated the description. You may be right, and this is not a good photo. I struggle very much to select any picture for FPC. I don't feel it well. Sorry to say, but as I see it, most pictures that pass here are very good technically, but no "wow" for me either. Looks like I selected poorly again. -- Jakubhal 16:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I have the same problem --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ Jakubhal I hate that silly "wow" criterion, but you are right, it's difficult to find something suitable for FP apart from mountains and birds. --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No-one said it wasn't a good photo. The remark was "it is also not an extraordinary good photo". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Autere Sacro Cuer Vijo Canins dlieja San Durich a Urtijëi.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2020 at 21:49:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Italy
Info Altar dedicated to the Sacred Heart in the parish church of Urtijëi build in the second half of the 18th century. The three woodcarved polychromed statues of Saint Monica, Jesus and John the Baptist are carved by Vijo Canins (1868-1946). The bas-relief on the side are carved by Albino Pitscheider and the carvings of the antependium are by Josef Welponer-Strëubl. All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great level of detail. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't like the current crop. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree. I think you should crop out some of the unsharp pews from the bottom. I think they do nothing but detract from the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Ikan. Cmao20 (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Charlesjsharp: , @Ikan Kekek: , @Cmao20: Thanks for your comment. Yes, that was my initial impression but cropping the bottom would take away the inferior "frame" of the altar. Besides compositional considerations, I like the rows of pews which "lead" to the altar and give a sense of devotion to the very beloved Sacred Heart and gives also a sense of space and community even if they are empty (we have corona... ;-) --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cropping out the pews wouldn't work. I would like more width (portrait dimensions), but I don't know what there is in the church left and right. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've made the thumbnail bigger; in the future please fill put "portrait" in the format field so it can produce an appropriately sized thumbnail. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the support. I actually did put portrait in the format field. Don't know what went wrong. Cheers --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 09:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Isiwal (talk) 09:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 19:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very slightly tilted to the right. Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Daniel Case: Thanks for your precious hint --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 08:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still tilted in the lower part --Llez (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Llez: I don‘t buy that :-) --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tari Tenun Nyoman Hendra Adhi Wibowo.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2020 at 12:18:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
Info created by Nyomanhendra21 - uploaded by Nyomanhendra21 - nominated by Mimihitam -- Mimihitam (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mimihitam (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately, the bottom-left cropped head ruins it. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good but not exceptional recording. --Fischer.H (talk) 08:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sadly per Charles. Cmao20 (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - In this kind of photo, someone is going to get cut off, and it doesn't matter, IMO, because this photo is not about the microcosm; rather, the point is to get the interesting effect and form of the mass of dancers doing the same movement at the same time en masse. It would be even nicer if some of the dancers up front were sharper, but this is a solid FP to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose I agree with Ikan about the composition, but I find the image too noisy. Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 20:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tradisi Unggahan Bonokeling.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2020 at 12:16:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
Info created by Giri Wijayanto - uploaded by Giri Wijayanto - nominated by Mimihitam -- Mimihitam (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mimihitam (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why would one choose such a wide aperture that most of the picture is out of focus? Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charles may have a point, but I also like the effect. Gives depth to the line. - Benh (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles, too many people are unsharp a higher f-value would have been better --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think Benh's right here, the wide aperture doesn't matter too much. Cmao20 (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The continuously decreasing sharpness makes sense for me in this case.--Ermell (talk) 07:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Michielverbeek. --Fischer.H (talk) 08:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Behn and Ermell. --Aristeas (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 19:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 06:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- RootlessCosmopolitain (talk)
Thanks, but not eligible to vote yet. --A.Savin 11:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Benh. --Domob (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 20:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Solvay conference 1927 Version2.jpg (delist), not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2020 at 01:41:13

Info Although the second photo has lower nominal resolution, it is clearly sharper than the first when compared at the same size. The second photo also preserves the shadows better and original exposition, which are lost in the first.(Original nomination, first delist) Wilfredor (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clearly sharper, but I think it's a bit dark. Would you mind brightening it up a little? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thanks King --Wilfredor (talk) 02:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for three reasons:

The original file shows an available size of 3170 px large, not 4708 px. Thus, I assume this was upscaled by Wilfredor (remember this nomination of last month). Our Image Quality guidelines request real pixels. Pictures here should be uploaded at their real size, and not artificially inflated. Otherwise please give a link to where it comes from with this special resolution.
This version is too contrasted, and does not match the original in sepia colors. See the blown highlights on the heads near Einstein, for example.
There are artifacts everywhere, due to the strong post-process (Topaz or another software). Skins, noses, wrinkles, are now full of stains. Sorry but the quality is worse in this version than on the non-restored one.

Thus, I would replace this FP by the original yes (uploaded with or without frame), slightly bigger in size and with natural colors, but definitely not this file, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't apply any upscaling process, it was juts a download from the source and stain and tear restoration. Please, take a look to image source --Wilfredor (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source displaying a picture with 7,15 Mpx and an upload that makes 15,19 Mpx on Commons? How weird! Best maybe is to upload the original here, then, so we can compare and see which work was made? "I don't apply any upscaling process", and what about generating "more details from non-existent pixels"? -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Basile Morin and Iifar: I did not apply any artificial intelligence upscaling, noise reduction, this was a mere tear and stain repair. Also, I uploaded another (removing sharpening filter automatically added by lightroom) and you will find the source here. Thanks for your recommendation. :) --Wilfredor (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the source online? This is the same than this one upscaled to 4749 px large, when you zoom very big. No more details, sorry. 50% of the pixels here are not real -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. --Ivar (talk) 09:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- absolutely not convinced by the second version. Yes, looked at both at 100%. --A.Savin 17:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
weak Delist and replace it does seem like a modest improvement to me (not just because of the resolution FWIW). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per Basile, replace with the original, which is a sepia photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination A series of bad faith comments on this nomination by the user Basile. A discussion about this is taking place here --Wilfredor (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion archived here. Greetings -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lemonnier premetro station rails tunnel in Brussels, BE (DSCF5655).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2020 at 19:00:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Transport#Rail tracks
Info No idea whether you'll like this one, but I thought it was a well-composed image of a subject that might not seem immediately attractive but has been made into an interesting photo. created by Trougnouf - uploaded by Trougnouf - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe I'd crop a bit of ceiling but I like it enough already. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How far would you like it cropped? If ≤10% feel free to make the change using the CropTool in lossless and overwrite mode. --Trougnouf (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Trougnouf: I thought a few % only - but maybe leave it as it is. It was just a suggestion, I supported the image anyway and other folks seem to like it as it is. --Podzemnik (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support I really like the emphasis on perspective and the use of leading lines, and the light/color contrasts are very eye-catching. -- RootlessCosmopolitain (talk)
Thanks, but not eligible to vote yet. --A.Savin 11:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love it! Maybe consider using {{Tracks are for trains}}, though? --El Grafo (talk) 08:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. @El Grafo: , that template is added now. Cmao20 (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sonya7iv (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, indeed! --Basotxerri (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support :-) --Trougnouf (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support 🚅--Killarnee (T•1•2) 16:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 10:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm curious about the hand drawing at the far left, which is quite unlike the rest of the graffiti -- part of a mural? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, you can see the beginning of it in this image File:Brusel, Lemmonier, tramvajová zastávka.jpg, as well as the platform I was standing on. Most of the Brussels' stations have some artwork and I try to cover Category:Art in MIVB station whenever I get a chance. --Trougnouf (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shouldn't work, but it does. Daniel Case (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Transport#Rail tracks

File:Sommerach Maintal 200788.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2020 at 15:42:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Bavaria
Info A really beautiful composition by Ermell, shot under good light and with lots of contrasting layers and colours. Created by Ermell - uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. I find the foreground a little abrupt and jarring; it could benefit from more room on the sides. But the colors and patterns are just really wonderful, and the shed and partially backlit trees in the back add a nice touch. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful colors, nice composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile. --Aristeas (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sonya7iv (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nomination Cmao20.--Ermell (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A^talk 19:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Striped puffer (Arothron manilensis) (43419852851).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2020 at 17:56:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family_:_Tetraodontidae_(Pufferfish)
Info created by Rickard Zerpe - uploaded by Christian Ferrer - nominated by Ivar (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't know if the blue line on the left of his mouth is CA, but I don't mind too much, this is an excellent underwater shot and a deserving FP. Cmao20 (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmao20: I think that was CA and I tried to minimize it. Please have another look. --Ivar (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Really sharp head and then some. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hello world 🐡 -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support He's very cute -- RootlessCosmopolitain (talk)
Thanks, but not eligible to vote yet. --A.Savin 11:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The mouth is blurred, but I won't oppose as that would be interpreted as a revenge vote: see Ivar's opposes on my current noms. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not cute --Killarnee (T•1•2) 16:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 10:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Fish#Family_:_Tetraodontidae_(Pufferfish)

File:Multnomah Falls October 2019 stack.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2020 at 03:59:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States#Oregon
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support fond memories --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can we get the top of the waterfall? Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Columbia River Gorge consists of the Columbia River to the north and steep cliffs to the south. I am shooting from a low elevation towards the south, where the sun is for the entire day during fall. So including the top of the waterfall would mean including unpleasant-looking sky, which is far brighter than the waterfall which is in shade. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely composition --Wilfredor (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per explanation for why the top of the waterfall can't be included. Other than that, beautiful composition and colours. Cmao20 (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support In this case it doesn't disturb at all that the waterfall in the back is cropped Poco a poco (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice bridge -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sonya7iv (talk) 09:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Killarnee (T•1•2) 16:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! --Tournasol7 (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's quite nice, but I do miss the top. Even if the sky were unpleasantly bright, with all the tree cover up there, it seems like we should be able to glimpse it (a quick google search for images from the fall shows that indeed the sky is a bright in all of them, but it's worth it [in some of the cases] IMO). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:South Africa - Zulu reed dance ceremony (6482557081).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2020 at 22:15:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Retlaw Snellac Photography - uploaded by Ser Amantio di Nicolao - nominated by Illegitimate Barrister -- – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 22:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 22:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I really want to support, but the faces are quite grainy... Renata3 (talk) 03:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice image but noisy. Quite short exposure while ISO too high. --Basotxerri (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:2Fi06395 Redoutable restored.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2020 at 08:54:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water_transport#Ships
Info created by Anonymous - restored, uploaded & nominated by S. DÉNIEL
Support -- S. DÉNIEL (talk) 08:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A big (24x30 cm), unsharp picture from the 1880s which is an interesting and well-labeled document with no great composition to me is a good Valued Image, not an FP. Please nominate to COM:VIC, as I may forget to do so. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan Kekek. --Fischer.H (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bruce McCandless II during EVA in 1984.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2020 at 12:51:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Space exploration#Astronauts
Info created by National Aeronautics and Space Administration - uploaded by Bricktop - nominated by Hellotheworld -- Hellotheworld (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hellotheworld (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gildir (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obviously not technically perfect, but an iconic image and I'm surprised it's not already featured. Cmao20 (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Classic. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. --Peulle (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao. --pandakekok9 11:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Killarnee (T•1•2) 16:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 10:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support even though the subject is tilted CW and the background is distracting :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Space exploration#Astronauts

File:Fiori Gialli Del Ranuncolo - Fiori di campo gialli.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2020 at 13:07:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Ranunculaceae
Info It is the common buttercup (Ranunculus acris). Its name has to do with frogs, as they both prefer wet, shady or swampy areas. created by PROPOLI87 - uploaded by PROPOLI87 - nominated by PROPOLI87 -- PROPOLI87 (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure about this but the white balance looks a little too green to me. Cmao20 (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

okPROPOLI87 (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)PROPOLI87PROPOLI87 (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Disturbing background and shadows. --Basotxerri (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OKPROPOLI87 (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)PROPOLI87PROPOLI87 (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't think this stands as amongst our best. The harsh light, the busy background, the random composition... I'd FPX this... - Benh (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. And please check your page when you create a new nomination, here the gallery is broken -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks, can you be more precise about what exactly I did wrong?PROPOLI87 (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)PROPOLI87PROPOLI87 (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PROPOLI87, every other nomination on this page has a functioning hyperlink that takes you to the correct gallery for the FP. Yours is broken and doesn't work as a hyperlink. The correct gallery code for this image would be Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Ranunculaceae. I'm not quite sure where you got yours from, but it's not a real gallery. Cmao20 (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the explanation. I corrected.The photo has many flaws, but at least it is rightly classifiedPROPOLI87 (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)PROPOLI87PROPOLI87 (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow-billed cardinals, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2020 at 16:43:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Yellow-billed cardinal (Paroaria capitata) adult
Yellow-billed cardinal (Paroaria capitata) juvenile

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Thraupidae (Tanagers and Allies)
Info An adult (with red head) and juvenile perching on the same branch. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose FP quality is imho not quite there - clipping whites, visible noise, sharpening artefacts and sharpness could be better. Looks like light conditions were not very good. --Ivar (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the noise, please? Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the noise, please Ivar? Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

notes added --Ivar (talk) 08:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! You have indicated some minor sharpening artefacts, not noise. Levels of sharpening/denoise are a matter of choice. I prefer this level of sharpening to (for instance) the very soft look that JJ has chosen for the top half of the parrot in your recent nomination. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Wilfredor (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding work, these were on my list to nominate. Cmao20 (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice pair. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very different from American cardinals. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, different family - and a bit more modest in the use of red! Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely done! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family : Thraupidae (Tanagers and Allies)

File:Rhipidura leucophrys - Glen Davis.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2020 at 05:19:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Rhipiduridae_(Fantails)
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Ivar (talk) 05:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 05:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question You were the only oppose voter on my current bird nom Ivar and complained of clipping whites. Can you not see the blown whites on this image? I am also surprised that you nominate this fantail, when the tail is hidden behind a branch. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This image was successfully promoted FPC on English Wikipedia. If you think, that it should not be promoted here, then vote accordingly. This is no place for personal remarks. Good day! --Ivar (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Weak because of the hidden tail, support because overall meets usual JJ Harrison quality. But I agree with Charles that there seems to be something of a double standard. The photos in Charles' current nom have better control of highlights than this one, and I think the detail on the birds is slightly better too. Cmao20 (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Out of focus tail, heavy noise suppression and then oversharpened. --A.Savin 17:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The hidden tail is a bigger issue in my eyes, if we could see it below the branch would have been ok to me, but in this case I feel something missing here Poco a poco (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Ivar (talk) 04:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ivar (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Musikkpaviljongen, Bergen, Noruega, 2019-09-08, DD 52-53 PAN.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2020 at 10:40:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Norway
Info Musikkpaviljongen ("Music Pavilion"), Bergen, Norway. The iron-cast, inspired by Moorish architecture, was as a gift of businessman and consul F. G. Gade (1830-1904) in 1888 to Bergen Municipality. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 10:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 10:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shot, interesting subject and very good at full size. Cmao20 (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The cylindrical perspective doesn't work for me, particularly here in architecture. Nice flowers but ordinary buildings behind, and I find their curved shape unappealing -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Basile. Renata3 (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile. Good picture and nice scene, but not special enough for FP. --Domob (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poco a poco (talk) 06:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Poco a poco (talk) 06:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Living room of a typical rural house in northeast Brazil.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2020 at 18:51:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Brazil
Info -- Wilfredor (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it, it's the eclectic mix of different frames that makes it work. Cmao20 (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Unfortunately the uneven lighting and shadow at the left are distracting. It also appears to be taken at a slight angle (i.e. the photographic plane is not parallel to the wall). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

King of Nice review, please, take a look and let me know if its better or fixed. Thanks mate, i really appreciate negative feedback because it allows me to improve --Wilfredor (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still bothered by the diagonal line caused by the shadow on the left. But the whole motif is actually pretty good, and I would support if the shadow weren't there. So count me as

Neutral now. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I could fix it, however, maybe tomorrow because my work --Wilfredor (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would support, but file needs more info and description. What town was it taken in? Why is it "Unidentified location" if you took this in January this year? Is it an actual private house or a gallery/museum of some kind? Renata3 (talk) 07:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the question, this picture was taken on Cais do Sertão, a complex dedicated to Luis Gonzaga, tree times winner how the biggest museum and more complete of Brazil Nordest, it's a reproduction of a Typical House of Brazil Nordest, a rural area of Pernambuco state --Wilfredor (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As Renata3, I would like support it, but a bit more information would be nice. --Aristeas (talk) 10:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This photo may not hit the viewer over the head with wow, but I love these kinds of slices of life and wish we were able to feature more of them. In this case, it's not so much that the photo is well composed as that we get to see an example of the kind of composition that could be created by the inhabitants by combining these different images and the family rifle in an interesting way. I agree with the others, though, that you should add the location information you provide above to the description and/or link to Cais do Sertão's website or a Wikipedia article about it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A tripod would have helped -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice scene. Edited caption to clearly state that this is a museum reproduction. Renata3 (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support now, for the reasons explained by Ikan (thank you!). — And thank you, Renata3! You have added what IMHO was missing in the caption. --Aristeas (talk) 07:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Basile, the lost of detail is significant Poco a poco (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 01:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, tripod would help, but to me the composition and the uniqueness of the nominated picture make up for it. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality issues and the motif doesn't appeal to me, especially that rifle on the wall. --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:Auto accident on Bloor Street West in 1918.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2020 at 17:01:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1910-1920
Info created by James Salmon - uploaded by Mindmatrix - nominated by B222 -- — bertux 17:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Especially for the snow chains, as well as the clothing. High quality for 1918 -- — bertux 17:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not sure whether to oppose, but to me, this is a curiosity and a good VI, not an outstanding composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - From the guidelines: Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable:

Of high historic merit: [...] very early illustrations of scenes and events [...]. Hence, a work of poor quality depicting a contemporaneous historical event can be nonetheless important, [...]

Try and find any photograph of snow chains of the pre-1920 period, let alone good quality images of them being in use (and in vain). Traffic historians won't see this as a mere curiosity — bertux 17:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That level of specialization says "Valued image" to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 11:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Can't appreciate with such a small resolution. 0,692 Mpx is far below the extreme minimum of 2 Mpx required in the guidelines, and we have much bigger pictures from the same period -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - With snow chains? See the remarks above — bertux 16:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With even more interesting contents than snow chains -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Basile and my comments above. Please nominate this photo in the appropriate scope at COM:VIC, where (providing the scope is good, and if not, we'll work with you) it will be promoted without any arguments as historically important and useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as noted, subpar quality and we have better. Daniel Case (talk) 04:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fischer.H (talk • contribs)

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Reflections of Earth 9.jpg (delist), delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2020 at 00:53:56

Info Small resolution, motion blur. (Original nomination)
Delist -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I wouldn't support this as a new nomination, but I think it's OK to remain as an FP. However, if we're choosing to delist the smaller and less spectacular photos in Category:Fireworks, we should also delist File:Sparkler.JPG. To be clear, I don't support delisting either one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that this image doesn't even meet the criteria back in 2008. Camera shake has always been a reason to deny a feature, and this image has loads of it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't express that view in 2008, and those who did express a view on this version supported it 13-0. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My rule of thumb is, if I would FPX it now, then it should be delisted. If I would merely oppose it, then it should be kept. I would FPX this image if nominated now. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's logical, but I wouldn't FPX it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist My view is that this is not good enough to remain "one of the finest images on Commons". As the Guidelines state: "As overall image quality improves, some images will be delisted." That means that as better and better fireworks images appear on Commons, expectations rise as to which should be called the best. I was looking at some of the existing FPs (some of which might actually also deserve delisting), and looking at these from 2008, 2011 and 2018, this one is not in the same league. --Peulle (talk) 10:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per KOH's point that this would probably get an FPX today. Pretty but lots of better firework shots around, and the camera shake is visible even at small size. Cmao20 (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Peulle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fischer.H (talk • contribs) 16:36, 21. Apr. 2020 (UTC)
Delist per Peulle. Not one of the very best by any means. --Kreuz schnabel 16:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Low resolution, insufficient quality, dull colors -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Basically per King of Hearts. Technical reasons aside, this is still a rather meh image by today's standards. --El Grafo (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Basotxerri (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I've taken many better pictures of fireworks which I wouldn't even dream of uploading here, much less nominating. Daniel Case (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per Peulle. --Domob (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 10 delist, 3 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Eatcha (talk) 07:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ellis Island hospital (01849).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2020 at 22:20:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors#United_States
Info Many early 20th century immigrants to the US came through Ellis Island. Those who were sick (or suspected to be sick) were confined to the Ellis Island Immigrant Hospital. It closed in 1930, but still stands today, unused. A few years ago, the artist JR installed old pictures of former patients around the hospital grounds, in what I think is an interesting (and effective) way to experience site's history. This one in particular is on the exterior of an inaccessible building, with a caged porch. I found it quite striking, but also quite difficult to photograph (perhaps why, if you search for this installation, it's hard to find images of this one). It's possible to get closer, to see more through the doorway of the porch, but it seems like the image is meant to be viewed through the cage (it was not a particularly happy place). I'm happy with the final result, but we will see what others think. PS: if this sounds familiar, it's because I previously nominated another image from this place. created/uploaded/nominated by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Well photographed and though not so intended, an apt metaphor for our time. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I assume you've done your due diligence regarding copyright, as in the last nomination? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same set of photos as the other one, so same considerations would apply. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sonya7iv (talk) 11:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 05:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Squared off it would make a great album cover image. Daniel Case (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Recruits of the Czechoslovak People's Army, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2020 at 21:34:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Group of Czechoslovak People's Army rectruits posing for the camera
The same group of recruits leisuring

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1980-1990
Info created by Valdemar Bednarz - scanned, uploaded and nominated by T.Bednarz -- T.Bednarz (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- T.Bednarz (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm sorry if I'm missing some outstanding qualities of these photos, but to me, they seem like pretty good snapshots for use as mementos by the then-recruits, in damaged condition and, at least in the first one, not great quality for 1986. (Small detail: I've never seen "leisure" as a verb. I'd use the phrase "at leisure".) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not great quality -- scratches all over, has very strange feel to it in comparison to all other old photo scans I have seen (over-digitized?). Not particularly historically significant to make up for the shortcomings. Renata3 (talk) 05:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 08:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]